Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
In claim 5, the Examiner has noted the use of the clause “to be.” Examples of such claim language raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. The claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Notably, limitations recited after the phrases will be considered optional to the functionality of the claimed system. It is suggested to positively and concretely define the functionality of the claimed invention. The Examiner suggests the following phrasing: “wherein the device performs PSM transmission on behalf of the VRU cluster.”
Claim 7 depends from claim 5, which defines “vulnerable road user (VRU)”, therefore, claim 7 should be amended to “
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The term “based on that” in claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “based on that” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in the claim language if the phrase “based on that” is referring to the first data element, the battery status, or the battery charging threshold. This rejection applies to dependent claims 2 – 9, 12, and 13. The Examiner suggest amending the claim to “wherein and the PSM is configured to further include a second DE for providing information regarding a PSM transmission interval of the device in the low battery status.”
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 5 describes “the device determines, based on the battery status of the device, whether to be a leader which performs PSM transmission on behalf of the VRU cluster.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and describes “based on that the battery status of the device is lower than the battery charging threshold, the device operates as a member other than the leader of the VRU cluster.” Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and describes “based on that the device operates in a battery saving mode, the device operates as a member other than a leader of a vulnerable road user (VRU) cluster.” The claim language is unclear regarding whether the determination for the device to be a member other than the leader in claims 6 and 7 was based on the same battery status referred to in claim 5, or an updated battery status. The Examiner suggests amending the claim language of claims 6 and 7 to state “wherein the device determines, based on the updated battery status of the device, the device is a leader; and performing PSM transmission on behalf of the VRU cluster.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 – 3 and 9– 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (U.S. Publication No. 12538106 B2) and Stapleford (U.S. Publication No. 20200267515 A1).
Regarding claim 11,
Shin teaches “A device (UE 111; Fig. 1) configured to transmit a message in a wireless communication system, the device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (a memory 113; Fig. 1); and
a processor (a processor 112; Fig. 1) configured to perform operations by executing the instructions, wherein the operations performed by the processor (The processor 112 implements the function of the UE 111 and can include one or more software modules.” [Col. 4, lines 33-36])) comprise:
obtaining information regarding a status of a battery of the device (The message broker can be configured to determine the transmission and reception scheme [of PSM] based on a remaining battery capacity.” [Col. 2, lines 59 - 61]); and
transmitting a personal safety message (PSM) (When the remaining battery capacity is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the message broker can be configured to determine the transmission and reception scheme [of PSM] based on a remaining battery capacity; [Col. 2, lines 61 - 65]),
Shin does not teach a first data element (DE) and wherein based on that a field for notifying a low battery status in the first DE is set to a TRUE value, the PSM is configured to further include a second DE for providing information regarding a PSM transmission interval of the device in the low battery status.
Stapleford teaches a first data element (DE) and wherein based on that a field for notifying a low battery status in the first DE is set to a TRUE value, the PSM is configured to further include a second DE for providing information regarding a PSM transmission interval of the device in the low battery status (a record having fields such as
“a battery low status indicator 373 indicating whether the battery charge level is normal (“0”) or low (“1”)…
a Pause indicator 381 indicating whether a user has set a Pause setting (e.g., no=(“0”), yes=(“1”)); an AutoPause field 382 indicating timing information related to the Pause setting; an alert delay field 383 indicating timing information related to alert and notifications (e.g., an integer corresponding to number of minutes that alert notifications should be delayed before notifying notification service. [Paragraph 107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention, to combine Shin’s method of using the device battery status to determine PSM transmission mode (i.e. adjustments and changes to PSM transmission rate and method) with Stapleford’s record fields (i.e. data elements in a message) which indicate the battery status in a binary format, as well as fields which indicate notification pause and alert delays (i.e. transmission rate adjustments). The motivation to combine is to use Stapleford’s message structure with data elements configured to indicate battery status and transmission rate of a message with Shin’s method of using the battery status to determine the transmission rate of a PSM.
Regarding claim 1, claim 11 discloses all the limitations of claim 1in device mode rather than method mode. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding claim 10, claim 11 discloses all the limitations of claim 10 in device mode rather than computer-readable media mode. Shin also discloses a CRM (memory 113/123 can include any form of computer-readable medium configured to store information; col. 4, lns. 64-66). Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, claim 11 discloses all the limitations of claim 15 from the transmitter’s perspective rather than the receiver’s perspective. Shin also discloses a receiver (Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, claim 15 discloses all the limitations of claim 14 in device mode rather than method mode. Shin also discloses a memory and a processor (Fig. 1, 113/112). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 15 and 11.
Regarding claim 2, Shin-Stapleford teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Shin also teaches “the PSM ” (
“When the remaining battery capacity is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the message broker can be configured to determine the transmission and reception scheme as the BLE-based transmission and reception scheme” [Col. 2. Lines 61 - 64])
Shin does not teach the PSM transmission interval set to be higher than or equal to a first value.
Stapleford also teaches "the PSM transmission interval of the device… is set to be higher than or equal to a first value." (
“an alert delay field 383 indicating timing information related to alert and notifications (e.g., an integer corresponding to number of minutes that alert notifications should be delayed before notifying notification service” [Paragraph 107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to combine Shin’s method for determining transmission mode for a PSM message when device battery is below a threshold value (i.e. low battery status) of a PSM message with Stapleford’s message field for a delay in transmission of a notification that is a particular value (i.e. setting the transmission rate of a message to be a specific value, including above a comparative value). The motivation to combine is to have a PSM transmission which has a particular transmission interval based on a battery status.
Regarding claim 3, Shin-Stapleford teach all the limitations of claim 2.
Shin also teaches “wherein the first value is related to a PSM .” (
“…if the battery is above a specific value, the UE can transmit messages in the dual mode” [Col. 2, lines 59 - 61])
Shin does not teach the PSM transmission interval.
Stapleford teaches a PSM transmission interval. (
“an alert delay field 383 indicating timing information related to alert and notifications (e.g., an integer corresponding to number of minutes that alert notifications should be delayed before notifying notification service” [Paragraph 107])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to combine Shin’s method of adjusting PSM transmission given a battery status higher than the battery threshold status with Stapleford’s field for indicating transmission adjustments. The motivation to combine would be to have a first value related to the PSM transmission interval when the battery status of the device is higher than or equal to the battery charging threshold.
Regarding claim 9, Shin-Stapleford teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Shin also teaches “the device is a user equipment (UE) for a vulnerable road user (VRU).” (
“first UE 310” [Col. 5, line 50] in Figure 3)
Regarding claims 12 and 13, claims 12 and 13 disclose all the limitation disclosed in claim 9, but in device mode rather than method mode.
Regarding claim 12, Shin discloses a “a transceiver” (Fig. 13, 106).
Regarding claim 13, Shin discloses “a processing device configured to control a user equipment (UE)” (“first wireless device 100 can include one or more processors…and can be configured to implement the descriptions, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operational flowcharts disclosed” [Paragraph 68]).
Claims 12 and 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin-Stapleford and Wendt (International Publication No. WO 2022221233 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shin-Stapleford teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Stapleford also teaches “wherein the first value is 1100 .” (
“an alert delay field 383 indicating timing information related to alert and notifications (e.g., an integer corresponding to number of minutes that alert notifications should be delayed before notifying notification service” [Paragraph 107])
Stapleford does not teach the first value representing a value in milliseconds.
Wendt teaches the first value representing a value in milliseconds. (
“C-V2X technology provides high speed and high-frequency data exchange up to 10 times per second within millisecond latency.” [Paragraph 75])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to combine Stapleford’s alter delay field (i.e. transmission interval) with Wendt’s design choice to select “milliseconds” as the unit to describe transmission rate. The motivation to combine is to have the first value as “1100 milliseconds” (i.e. an integer in milliseconds).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin-Stapleford and Miyamoto (U.S. Publication No. US 20210092797 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shin-Stapleford teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Shin-Stapleford do not explicitly disclose “the device forms a vulnerable road user (VRU) cluster with at least one other device, and wherein the device determines, based on the battery status of the device, whether to be a leader which performs PSM transmission on behalf of the VRU cluster.”
Miyamoto teaches “the device forms a vulnerable road user (VRU) cluster with at least one other device, and wherein the device determines, based on the battery status of the device, whether to be a leader which performs PSM transmission on behalf of the VRU cluster.” (
“…the administrator of the network or the like to manually check performance and a battery remaining capacity of each of the plurality of communication devices and determine which communication device should be set as the master unit when the cluster-type network is constructed.” [Paragraph 11])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to combine Miyamoto’s method of selecting a master unit for a cluster-type network based on battery capacity (i.e. determining a leader in a VRU cluster) with Shin-Stapleford’s PSM message with elements based on battery status. The motivation to combine is to have a device which has PSM containing data elements based on battery status that may determine a VRU cluster leader.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Shin-Stapleford-Miyamoto teach all the limitations of claim 5. Claims 6 and 7 disclose all the limitations of claim 5, but from the perspective of a device determined not to be the leader of a VRU cluster. Therefore, claims 6 and 7 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin-Stapleford and Miucic (“Cooperative Vehicle to Pedestrian Safety System”, Connected Vehicles, pp 181-201, 2019).
Regarding claim 8, Shin-Stapleford teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Stapleford also teaches “the .” (
“a battery saving mode field 388” [Paragraph 107]
“the sensor unit may comprise one, or a combination of, the following sensors…a charge sensor” [Paragraph 200])
Shin-Stapleford do not explicitly disclose “PSM includes information for notifying that the device is charging the battery or operating in a battery saving mode.”
Miucic teaches “PSM includes information for notifying that the device is charging the battery or operating in a battery saving mode” (
“PSM includes pedestrian position, speed, direction, time, device state, and pedestrian type. Device states include talking on the phone, texting, and listening to the music…
“All this information about the pedestrian is embedded in the prototype PSM and sent over the air, see Table 2.” [Pages 189 – 190]
Table 2 PSM data elements have data elements such as “PedDeviceState.” [Page 190])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to combine Stapleford’s battery saving field and charge sensor (i.e. device operating in battery saving mode, or device is charging) with Miucic’s PSM data elements. The motivation to combine is to have a PSM where there are data elements that includes information for notifying that the device is charging or operating in a battery saving mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIHA KAMAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0726. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6 am - 3 pm, Alternating Fridays 6 am-2 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FATIHA KAMAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights