DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutomu et al (JP2017146790A, hereinafter "Tsutomu").
Regarding claim 1, Tsutomu teaches an information processing method in vehicle-to-everything communication (the communication system of this embodiment includes a plurality of terminal devices that can communicate wirelessly with one another. The terminal device may be a portable information terminal device (e.g. smartphone held by a pedestrian or a passenger in a vehicle) or may be an information terminal device installed in a vehicle (e.g. navigation device) [0025]) that is performed by an information processing device of a moving object (the CPU 110 of the terminal device(s) creates a hybrid frame CF, sets a group ID, sets terminal group conditions, etc. [0056, 0077]), the information processing method comprising:
setting a group identification for forming a group (the group ID is an identifier used to identify the terminal group GR, and is set in the terminal group setting process. The group ID is used in a terminal group participation request, a critical process for forming/adding terminals to a group [0056, 0078]);
sending a predetermined condition for joining the group (The CPU of the terminal device broadcasts a request to join the terminal group (e.g. terminal group participation request). The terminal group participation request may include information indicating the terminal group conditions [0078]); and
receiving data communication in the vehicle-to-everything communication, the data communication including the group identification (a hybrid frame CF includes a group ID used to identify a terminal group. Terminal devices receive the hybrid frame CF broadcast by another terminal device within the group [0056, 0059, 0062]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomu in view of Rainer (US12243425B2, hereinafter "Rainer").
Regarding claim 2, Tsutomu teaches wherein setting the group identification includes:
sending a grouping request signal by broadcast (the CPU of the terminal device broadcasts a request to join the terminal group (e.g. terminal group participation request) [0078]),
Tsutomu does not teach:
receiving an acknowledge signal from a second information processing device of a second moving object that satisfies the predetermined condition, and
setting the group identification for the second information processing device of the second moving object that satisfies the predetermined condition.
In analogous art, Rainer teaches:
receiving an acknowledge signal from a second information processing device (communication device aligned with a road user [Col. 1, lines 23-24) of a second moving object (a further road user (e.g. another motorized vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist) receives/transmits messages via the communication device (e.g. a smart phone or other mobile device), utilizing a communication channel [Col. 1, lines 22-34; Col. 7, lines 27-30; Col. 8, lines 10-12]) that satisfies the predetermined condition (after a road user sends a request message to form a communication group for an application (e.g. a particular maneuver), a response message from a further road user (wanting to join the communication group) results in the communication group being established [Col. 3, lines 4-10; Col. 8, lines 10-17]), and
setting the group identification for the second information processing device of the second moving object that satisfies the predetermined condition (Identification information is used to describe group members as a joint object so that when an additional message is sent to the object with the identification information (e.g. the joint object), it is received by all group members [Col. 3, lines 9-18; Col. 8, lines 19-33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsutomu to set the group identification as taught by Rainer in order to increase safety for road users (vehicles, pedestrians, e-scooters, etc.) and to simplify V2X communication which reduces the number of messages required through a communication channel and provide a general increase safety for road users (vehicles, pedestrians, e-scooters, etc.) (Rainer, [Col. 2, lines 63-66]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsutomu teaches an information processing method in vehicle-to-everything communication (the communication system of this embodiment includes a plurality of terminal devices that can communicate wirelessly with one another. The terminal device may be a portable information terminal device (e.g. smartphone held by a pedestrian or a passenger in a vehicle) or may be an information terminal device installed in a vehicle (e.g. navigation device) [0025]) that is performed by an information processing device of a first movable object (the CPU 110 (information processing device) of the local terminal device(s) (first moveable object) creates a hybrid frame CF, sets a group ID, sets terminal group conditions, etc. local terminal device, 100 [0056-0057, 0077]), the information processing method comprising:
receiving a grouping request signal to form a group with a second movable object (the CPU 110 of the terminal device 100s broadcasts a request to join the terminal group, where each terminal device 100 may individually broadcast a request to join a terminal group. When the number of terminal devices 100 that satisfy the terminal group conditions reaches the upper limit, each terminal device 100 that satisfies the terminal group conditions will join the terminal group GR [0078-0079]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that participation in terminal group GR requires reception and processing of participation requests from other terminal devices (second moving object) seeking to form the group);
determining whether a predetermined condition is satisfied based on a state of the second movable object (the CPU 110 of the local terminal devices 100s sets the terminal group GR based on the local terminal information TI and the other terminal information TIe, where the group is set up only with terminal devices satisfying the terminal group conditions. Terminal group conditions may include speed, direction of movement, type of terminal device, and type of moving object [0077, 0089]);
setting a group identification for the first movable object to be the same group identification as the second movable object (terminal devices satisfying the terminal group conditions join the same terminal group GR, The terminal group is identified by a group ID included in the group participation request, and information relating to the terminal group, including the group ID, is stored by participating terminal devices. Further, communications associated with the group include a group ID and terminal information for all terminals belonging to the terminal group [0056, 0078-0080]); and
Tsutomu does not teach receiving data communication from a third movable object, the data communication including the group identification.
In analogous art, Rainer teaches receiving data communication from a third movable object (a road user outside the communication group (a third moveable object) transmits communication information to the communication group [Col. 12, lines 30-33]), the data communication including the group identification (communication information is transmitted by the road user using the identification information of the communication group (e.g. "group identification") [Col. 12, lines 25-35]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsutomu to set the group identification as taught by Rainer in order to increase safety for road users (vehicles, pedestrians, e-scooters, etc.) and to simplify V2X communication which reduces the number of messages required through a communication channel and provide a general increase safety for road users (vehicles, pedestrians, e-scooters, etc.) (Rainer, [Col. 2, lines 63-66]).
Regarding claim 11, Tsutomu teaches further comprising the step of receiving the predetermined condition from the second movable object (The CPU of the terminal device 100 broadcasts a request to join the terminal group (e.g. terminal group participation request). The terminal group participation request may include information indicating the terminal group conditions (predetermined condition) as well as a group ID and other information [0071, 0078]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that participation in terminal group GR requires reception and processing of participation requests (which include terminal group conditions) from other terminal devices (second moving object) seeking to form the group).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomu, in view of Rainer, and in further view of Khosla et al. (US 2024/0096212 A1, hereinafter "Khosla").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer does not teach wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which a location of the second moving object is within a group radius of the moving object.
In analogous art, Khosla teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which a location of the second moving object is within a group radius of the moving object (grouping of vehicles may take into account a predetermined range between vehicles, restricting vehicles added to the group to those meeting the predetermined range [0110-0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predetermined condition as taught by Khosla into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to improve safety and alleviate road congestion by enabling efficient road usage (Khosla, [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tsutomu, Rainer, and Khosla, specifically Khosla, teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which a direction of travel of the second moving object is substantially the same as a direction of travel of the moving object (grouping of vehicles may take into account factors such as the direction of travel of the vehicles (e.g. a first group may be based on west bound vehicles…) [0109-0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predetermined condition as taught by Khosla into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to improve safety and alleviate road congestion by enabling efficient road usage (Khosla, [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tsutomu, Rainer, and Khosla, specifically Khosla, teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which the second moving object is located within a predetermined distance from a traffic infrastructure equipment (grouping can be determined based on the distance of vehicle(s) from an intersection (which includes a roadside unit), with example distances of 10m, 50m, and 100m from the intersection provided [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predetermined condition as taught by Khosla into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to improve safety and alleviate road congestion by enabling efficient road usage (Khosla, [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tsutomu, Rainer, and Khosla, specifically Khosla, teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which a location of the first movable object is within a group radius of the second movable object (grouping of vehicles may take into account a predetermined range between vehicles, restricting vehicles added to the group to those meeting the predetermined range [0110-0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predetermined condition as taught by Khosla into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to improve safety and alleviate road congestion by enabling efficient road usage (Khosla, [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tsutomu, Rainer, and Khosla, specifically Khosla, teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition in which a direction of travel of the first movable object is substantially the same as a direction of travel of the second movable object (grouping of vehicles may take into account factors such as the direction of travel of the vehicles (e.g. a first group may be based on west bound vehicles…) [0109-0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predetermined condition as taught by Khosla into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to improve safety and alleviate road congestion by enabling efficient road usage (Khosla, [0021]).
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomu in view of Rainer, and in further view of Purkayastha et al (US 20230171824 A1, hereinafter “Purkayastha”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer does not teach further comprising the step of determining that the data communication received from the third movable object is intended for the first movable object based on the group identification.
In analogous art, Purkayastha teaches further comprising the step of determining that the data communication received from the third movable object (WTRU 410, sender of one-to-many communication [0109]) is intended for the first movable object (WTRU 510, receiver [0112]) based on the group identification (wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) may include a user equipment, a mobile station, a mobile subscriber nit, a pager, a cellular telephone, a smart phone, a vehicle, a drone, and the like. A first WTRU 410 one-to-many direct communication using a ProSe Layer-2 Group ID as the Destination Layer-2 ID. A receiving WTRU 510 receives the communication and filters received frames based on the ProSe Layer-2 Group ID contained in the Destination Lauer-2 ID, delivering the packet to upper layers when the received Group ID matches one of its configured Group IDs [0034, 0109, 0112-0113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate group-based D2D communication techniques taught by Rainer into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to manage communications through group-related information and group identifiers to support efficient one-to-many communications among multiple devices while maintaining performance and reliability (Purkayastha, [0003-0004, 0138]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer does not teach wherein the data communication is received by the first movable object without being transmitted by or relayed by the second movable object.
In analogous art, Purkayastha teaches wherein the data communication is received by the first movable object (WTRU 420) without being transmitted by or relayed by the second movable object (WTRU 430) (A first WTRU (420) and a second WTRU (430) configured with a common group information and receiving one-to-many ProSe Direct Communication transmitted by a third WTRU (410). WTRUs 420 and 430 listen to radio resources and receive the one-to-many direct traffic transmitted by WTRU 410 and that received frames are processed based on the ProSe Layer-2 Group ID contained in the transmission. Teaches direct device communication without any relay between device [0099, 0110, 0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate group-based D2D communication techniques taught by Rainer into the information processing method taught by the combination of Tsutomu and Rainer in order to manage communications through group-related information and group identifiers to support efficient one-to-many communications among multiple devices while maintaining performance and reliability (Purkayastha, [0003-0004, 0138]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guo et al (US 20250274728 A1) discloses user equipment group and quasi-collocation configuration management.
Fischer et al (US 20240284528 A1) discloses systems and methods for a sidelink positioning protocol.
Subrahmanya et al (US 20230146267 A1) discloses formation of user equipment groups.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRA R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571)272-7919. 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.
/A.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights