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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on November 01, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-30 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. $102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”).
Regarding Claim 1, Bergstrom teaches a method of receiving privileges at a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: “A wireless communication device 400 may also be referred to as user equipment (UE), a station (STA), or a terminal in some embodiments.” [0063]. Further “The exchange begins at step 304 where 3GPP access node 110 communicates first configuration information to wireless communication device 105 located within a coverage area of the first network.” [0034]
based on a determination that the UE is within a first geographical region associated with a first authority, receiving first privilege information from a first wireless node within the first geographical region, the first privilege information comprising a first set of behavioral rules determined by the first authority, “Each access node has an associated coverage area. When wireless communication device 105 is located within a coverage area of a particular access node, it is capable of communicating with that access node.” [0016]. “The exchange begins at step 304 where 3GPP access node 110 communicates first configuration information to wireless communication device 105 located within a coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information is associated with the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network) in the sense that the first network selects the first configuration information, wireless communication device 105 receives the first configuration information from the first network, and/or wireless communication device 105 is instructed to act according to the first configuration information at least until wireless communication device 105 moves outside the coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use to select an access node for connection, to determine settings to use when connecting to the access node, to set mobility related parameters …and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0034]. “At step 308, wireless communication 105 device within the coverage area of the first network applies the first configuration information. Thus, wireless communication device 105 will act according to the policies, rules, and/or settings indicated by the first configuration information.” [0038]
based on a determination that the UE is within an overlapping region, the overlapping region within a communication range of the first wireless node within the first geographical region and a communication range of a second wireless node within a second geographical region associated with a second authority, operating the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules; and, “FIG. 1 includes a wireless communication device 105 that supports communication with a first network and a second network. The first network comprises access nodes 110 and the second network comprises access nodes 120” [0015]. “The coverage area of the first network may or may not overlap the coverage area of the second network.” [0017]. “As illustrated in FIG. 1, Wi-Fi access node 120A has a full coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110A (scenario A), Wi-Fi access node 110B has partial coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110B (scenario B), and Wi-Fi access node 120C has no coverage overlap with any 3GPP coverage (scenario C).” [0017]. “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network).” [0050]. “If the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario A or scenario B described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to continue to act according to the first configuration information.” [0051]. “If the networks have partial overlap (scenario B), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to continue to act according to the first configuration information as long as wireless communication device 105 is connecting with the partially overlapping Wi-Fi access node 120B” [0044]
receiving second privilege information from the second wireless node within the second geographical region, the second privilege information configured to enable the UE to operate according to a second set of behavioral rules determined by the second authority while within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, “When wireless communication device 150 moves out of the coverage area of the first network, it may move into the coverage area of a second network” [0059]. “The second network may use the same radio access technology as the first network (such as a second 3GPP network operated by a different operator) or a different radio access technology (which may or may not be operated by a different operator).” [0059]. “In some embodiments, wireless communication device 150 receives second configuration information from Wi-Fi Access Node 120 at step 332.” [0060]. “The second configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use to select an access node for connection, to determine settings to use when connecting to the access node, to set mobility related parameters … and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0060]. “The second configuration information could include a second policy comprising different rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes are available to the wireless communication device.” [0048]. “ If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051]
Regarding Claim 5, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 5 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Bergstrom further teaches prior to the determination that the UE is within the overlapping region, operating the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules while within the first geographical region, “At step 308, wireless communication 105 device within the coverage area of the first network applies the first configuration information. Thus, wireless communication device 105 will act according to the policies, rules, and/or settings indicated by the first configuration information.” [0038]. “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network).” [0050].
Regarding Claim 7, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 7 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Bergstrom further teaches the additional limitations of claim 7: wherein the receiving of the second privilege information from the second wireless node is based on a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network” [0050], and “The coverage overlap determination may be made dynamically “ [0050], and “If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051].
Regarding Claim 9, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 9 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Bergstrom further teaches based on a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, switching, from the operating of the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules, to operating the UE that is based on the second set of behavioral rules; wherein the second set of behavioral rules is different from the first set of behavioral rules, “If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051]. “If the networks have no overlap (scenario C), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to discard or refrain from acting according to the first configuration information … such that wireless communication device acts according to different configuration information.” [0044]. “The second configuration information may be an alternative configuration from the 3GPP network, a default configuration … or a configuration received from a second network (such as the Wi-Fi network).” [0048]. “The second configuration information could include a second policy comprising different rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes are available to the wireless communication device.” [0048].
Regarding Claim 10, Bergstrom teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising: “The E-UTRAN includes access nodes (base stations) called “enhanced NodeBs”/eNBs/eNodeBs 210. The eNBs 210 provide the E-UTRA user plane and control plane protocol terminations towards a wireless communication device, such as User Equipment/UE 205” [0022], and “Wireless communication devices, such as mobile phones and portable computers, communicate with radio access networks according to radio access technology.” [0003]
a memory, “Wireless communication device 400 comprises transceiver 410, processor 420, and memory 430.” [0063], and further “memory 430 stores the instructions executed by processor 420.” [0063], and additionally “Memory 430 is generally operable to store instructions, such as a computer program, software, an application comprising one or more of logic, rules, algorithms, code, tables, etc. and/or other instructions capable of being executed by a processor.” [0065]
and one or more processors, “processor 420 executes instructions to provide some or all of the functionality described above as being provided by wireless communication devices” [0063], and “Processor 420 may comprise any suitable combination of hardware and software implemented in one or more modules to execute instructions and manipulate data to perform some or all of the described functions of wireless communication device 400.” [0064], and “In some embodiments, processor 420 may include, for example, one or more computers, one or more central processing units (CPUs), one or more microprocessors, one or more applications, and/or other logic.” [0064]
communicatively coupled to the memory, “memory 430 stores the instructions executed by processor 420.” [0063], and “Memory 430 is generally operable to store instructions, such as a computer program, software, an application comprising one or more of logic, rules, algorithms, code, tables, etc. and/or other instructions capable of being executed by a processor” [0065]
and configured to: “processor 420 executes instructions to provide some or all of the functionality described above as being provided by wireless communication devices” [0063]
based on a determination that the UE is within a first geographical region associated with a first authority, receiving first privilege information from a first wireless node within the first geographical region, the first privilege information comprising a first set of behavioral rules determined by the first authority, “Each access node has an associated coverage area. When wireless communication device 105 is located within a coverage area of a particular access node, it is capable of communicating with that access node.” [0016]. “The exchange begins at step 304 where 3GPP access node 110 communicates first configuration information to wireless communication device 105 located within a coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information is associated with the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network) in the sense that the first network selects the first configuration information, wireless communication device 105 receives the first configuration information from the first network, and/or wireless communication device 105 is instructed to act according to the first configuration information at least until wireless communication device 105 moves outside the coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use to select an access node for connection, to determine settings to use when connecting to the access node, to set mobility related parameters …and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0034]. “At step 308, wireless communication 105 device within the coverage area of the first network applies the first configuration information. Thus, wireless communication device 105 will act according to the policies, rules, and/or settings indicated by the first configuration information.” [0038]
based on a determination that the UE is within an overlapping region, the overlapping region within a communication range of the first wireless node within the first geographical region and a communication range of a second wireless node within a second geographical region associated with a second authority, operating the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules; and, “FIG. 1 includes a wireless communication device 105 that supports communication with a first network and a second network. The first network comprises access nodes 110 and the second network comprises access nodes 120” [0015]. “The coverage area of the first network may or may not overlap the coverage area of the second network.” [0017]. “As illustrated in FIG. 1, Wi-Fi access node 120A has a full coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110A (scenario A), Wi-Fi access node 110B has partial coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110B (scenario B), and Wi-Fi access node 120C has no coverage overlap with any 3GPP coverage (scenario C).” [0017]. “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network).” [0050]. “If the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario A or scenario B described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to continue to act according to the first configuration information.” [0051]. “If the networks have partial overlap (scenario B), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to continue to act according to the first configuration information as long as wireless communication device 105 is connecting with the partially overlapping Wi-Fi access node 120B” [0044]
receiving second privilege information from the second wireless node within the second geographical region, the second privilege information configured to enable the UE to operate according to a second set of behavioral rules determined by the second authority while within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, “When wireless communication device 150 moves out of the coverage area of the first network, it may move into the coverage area of a second network” [0059]. “The second network may use the same radio access technology as the first network (such as a second 3GPP network operated by a different operator) or a different radio access technology (which may or may not be operated by a different operator).” [0059]. “In some embodiments, wireless communication device 150 receives second configuration information from Wi-Fi Access Node 120 at step 332.” [0060]. “The second configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use to select an access node for connection, to determine settings to use when connecting to the access node, to set mobility related parameters … and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0060]. “The second configuration information could include a second policy comprising different rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes are available to the wireless communication device.” [0048]. “ If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051]
Regarding Claim 14, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 14 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. Bergstrom further teaches prior to the determination that the UE is within the overlapping region, operating the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules while within the first geographical region, “At step 308, wireless communication 105 device within the coverage area of the first network applies the first configuration information. Thus, wireless communication device 105 will act according to the policies, rules, and/or settings indicated by the first configuration information.” [0038]. “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network).” [0050].
Regarding Claim 16, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 16 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. Bergstrom further teaches the additional limitations of claim 16: wherein the receiving of the second privilege information from the second wireless node is based on a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network” [0050], and “The coverage overlap determination may be made dynamically “ [0050], and “If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051].
Regarding Claim 18, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 18 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. Bergstrom further teaches based on a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, switching, from the operating of the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules, to operating the UE that is based on the second set of behavioral rules; wherein the second set of behavioral rules is different from the first set of behavioral rules, “If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051]. “If the networks have no overlap (scenario C), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to discard or refrain from acting according to the first configuration information … such that wireless communication device acts according to different configuration information.” [0044]. “The second configuration information may be an alternative configuration from the 3GPP network, a default configuration … or a configuration received from a second network (such as the Wi-Fi network).” [0048]. “The second configuration information could include a second policy comprising different rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes are available to the wireless communication device.” [0048].
Regarding Claim 27, Bergstrom teaches an apparatus comprising: “Processor 520 may comprise any suitable combination of hardware and software implemented in one or more modules to execute instructions and manipulate data to perform some or all of the described functions of access node 500.” [0068], and further “Memory 530 is generally operable to store instructions, such as a computer program, software, an application comprising one or more of logic, rules, algorithms, code, tables, etc. and/or other instructions capable of being executed by a processor.” [0069], and “Network interface 540 may include appropriate hardware (e.g., port, modem, network interface card, etc.) and software, including protocol conversion and data processing capabilities, to communicate through a network.” [0070].
means for determining, by a wireless node within a first geographical region, a presence of a user equipment (UE) within a communication range of the wireless node; and, “FIG. 1 includes a wireless communication device 105 that supports communication with a first network and a second network. The first network comprises access nodes 110 and the second network comprises access nodes 120.” [0015]. “Each access node has an associated coverage area. When wireless communication device 105 is located within a coverage area of a particular access node” [0016]. “The coverage area of the first network may or may not overlap the coverage area of the second network. As illustrated in FIG. 1, Wi-Fi access node 120A has a full coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110A (scenario A), Wi-Fi access node 110B has partial coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110B (scenario B), and Wi-Fi access node 120C has no coverage overlap with any 3GPP coverage (scenario C).” [0017]
means for sending, by the wireless node, privilege information to the UE, privilege information configured to enable the UE to operate according to a set of behavioral rules associated with the first geographical region while the UE is within the first geographical region or within an overlap region that is created by a communication range of the wireless node and a communication range of another wireless node of another geographical region, “The exchange begins at step 304 where 3GPP access node 110 communicates first configuration information to wireless communication device 105 located within a coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information is associated with the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network) in the sense that the first network selects the first configuration information, wireless communication device 105 receives the first configuration information from the first network, and/or wireless communication device 105 is instructed to act according to the first configuration information at least until wireless communication device 105 moves outside the coverage area of the first network” [0034]. “If the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario A or scenario B described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to continue to act according to the first configuration information.” [0051]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2, 6, 11, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Stein et al. (US 20210044967 A1, hereinafter “Stein”).
Regarding Claim 2, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 2 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. However, Bergstrom does not teach wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle.
Stein teaches wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle, “The automotive devices may include mobile automotive devices, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0047], and “The mobile automotive device 202 such as the automotive 202A, 202B, 202E, 202F, 202I, 202J, 202L, 202M and/or 202P may include, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0105], and “In another example, the automotive device 202A may again be the autonomous vehicle system controlling a vehicle’ [0176]
It would have been oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Bergstrom, as modified by Stein to employ a mobile UE comprising a vehicle or being co-located with the vehicle as taught by Stein. Stein teaches that its geographically managed authorization system is implanted using mobile automotive devices, including vehicular devices, vehicle-mounted devices, and mobile devices carried by vehicle occupants, which move between different geographical areas and interact with different authorization entities associated with those areas. Applying Bergstrom geographically applicable configuration management to Stein’s mobile vehicular UE would have predictably enabled the same configuration policies and behavioral rules to be managed while the mobile UE traverses different geographical regions, yielding the expected benefit of maintaining appropriate region-specific configuration and authorization as the vehicle moves between coverage areas.
Regarding Claim 6, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 6 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein the first authority and the second authority are associated with respective first and second regulatory entities governing the first geographical region and the second geographical region, Stein teaches geographically associated authorization entities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas.
Stein teaches wherein the first authority and the second authority are associated with respective first and second regulatory entities governing the first geographical region and the second geographical region, Stein teaches geographically associated authorization entities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas, “The local AE is adapted to manage the identity authentication for a group of the plurality of automotive devices currently located in an associated geographical area” [0005], and “each of the AEs in the a lowest AE level is adapted to manage the identity posture evaluation for a group of the plurality of automotive devices currently located in a respective associated geographical area” [0014], and “the geographical area 108(1) may interact with the AE 118(1)” [0106], and “the automotive device 202A enters the geographical area 108(2) and starts interacting with a local AE associate with the geographical area 108(2)” [0141], and also “one or more AEs of one or more of the AE levels 110 may be associated with at least partially overlapping geographical areas” [0099]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate the geographically applicable behavioral rules and privilege information of Bergstrom with the geographically specific Authorization Entities taught by Stein because Stein provides region-specific authorities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas. Incorporating Stein’s regional authority structure into Bergstrom’s geographically dependent configuration framework would have predictably enabled the behavioral rules and privileges to be administered by the appropriate governing authority as a vehicle moves between different geographical regions.
Regarding Claim 11, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 11 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. However, Bergstrom does not teach wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle.
Stein teaches wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle, “The automotive devices may include mobile automotive devices, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0047], and “The mobile automotive device 202 such as the automotive 202A, 202B, 202E, 202F, 202I, 202J, 202L, 202M and/or 202P may include, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0105], and “In another example, the automotive device 202A may again be the autonomous vehicle system controlling a vehicle’ [0176]
It would have been oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Bergstrom, as modified by Stein to employ a mobile UE comprising a vehicle or being co-located with the vehicle as taught by Stein. Stein teaches that its geographically managed authorization system is implanted using mobile automotive devices, including vehicular devices, vehicle-mounted devices, and mobile devices carried by vehicle occupants, which move between different geographical areas and interact with different authorization entities associated with those areas. Applying Bergstrom geographically applicable configuration management to Stein’s mobile vehicular UE would have predictably enabled the same configuration policies and behavioral rules to be managed while the mobile UE traverses different geographical regions, yielding the expected benefit of maintaining appropriate region-specific configuration and authorization as the vehicle moves between coverage areas.
Regarding Claim 15, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 15 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein the first authority and the second authority are associated with respective first and second regulatory entities governing the first geographical region and the second geographical region, Stein teaches geographically associated authorization entities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas.
Stein teaches wherein the first authority and the second authority are associated with respective first and second regulatory entities governing the first geographical region and the second geographical region, Stein teaches geographically associated authorization entities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas, “The local AE is adapted to manage the identity authentication for a group of the plurality of automotive devices currently located in an associated geographical area” [0005], and “each of the AEs in the a lowest AE level is adapted to manage the identity posture evaluation for a group of the plurality of automotive devices currently located in a respective associated geographical area” [0014], and “the geographical area 108(1) may interact with the AE 118(1)” [0106], and “the automotive device 202A enters the geographical area 108(2) and starts interacting with a local AE associate with the geographical area 108(2)” [0141], and also “one or more AEs of one or more of the AE levels 110 may be associated with at least partially overlapping geographical areas” [0099]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate the geographically applicable behavioral rules and privilege information of Bergstrom with the geographically specific Authorization Entities taught by Stein because Stein provides region-specific authorities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas. Incorporating Stein’s regional authority structure into Bergstrom’s geographically dependent configuration framework would have predictably enabled the behavioral rules and privileges to be administered by the appropriate governing authority as a vehicle moves between different geographical regions.
Regarding Claim 28, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 28 as recited above in the rejection of claim 27. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle.
Stein teaches wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle, “The automotive devices may include mobile automotive devices, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0047], and further “The mobile automotive device 202, for example, automotive devices 202A, 202B, 202E, 202F, 202I, 202J, 202L, 202M and/or 202P may move between different geographical areas and may therefore interact with different AEs associated with the different geographical areas.” [0104], and “The mobile automotive device 202 such as the automotive 202A, 202B, 202E, 202F, 202I, 202J, 202L, 202M and/or 202P may include, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0105], and “In another example, the automotive device 202A may again be the autonomous vehicle system controlling a vehicle’ [0176], and “The vehicular devices and/or the vehicle mounted devices may further include, for example, a mobile device of a driver of the vehicle, a mobile device of a passenger in the vehicle and/or the like” [0105], and “In another example, the automotive device 202A may be a navigation system installed in a vehicle which may select, suggest and/or control a route of the vehicle” [0177], and “In another example, assuming the automotive device 202A may be a multimedia system installed in a vehicle which may play and/or present audio and/or video presentations to a driver and/or a passenger in the vehicle.” [0178]
It would have been oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method the combined system of Bergstrom and Lowe to employ Stein’s vehicle-based user equipment because Stein teaches applying regional authorization and operational information to automotive user equipment. Incorporating Stein’s vehicle implementation would have predictably enabled the combined system to operate in vehicular communication environment while preserving the region-specific operational policies and privilege information taught by Bergstrom and Lowe.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Stein et al. (US 20210044967 A1, hereinafter “Stein”), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20200160704 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 3, Bergstrom and Stein disclose the limitations of claim 3 as recited above in the rejection of claim 2. Bergstrom further teach wherein the first privilege information is contained in a first privilege certificate that defines one or more locations at which the first set of behavioral rules applies to the vehicle, “The exchange begins at step 304 where 3GPP access node 110 communicates first configuration information to wireless communication device 105 located within a coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use …and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0034]. “an ANDSF policy may indicate that a specific policy is valid for a region (such as a particular country)” [0033]. Table 2 further shows the ANDS configuration object including both the geographic validity area and the applicable policy information: “ValidityArea: AnchorLatitude = 5536988 AnchorLongtitude = 836620 Radius = 40” [0032]. “RoutingRules : AccessTechnology = 1 (3GPP)” [0032]
However, Bergstrom and Stein do not explicitly teach wherein the first set of behavioral rules comprises a speed limit for the vehicle, usage of one or more special lanes by the vehicle, a waiting time for a traffic light, or a combination thereof.
Choi teaches a waiting time for a traffic light, “The wait signal and the entry signal may be displayed using a virtual traffic light user interface (UI) through a display device provided in the first vehicle 111. For the wait signal, the calculated expected wait time and a brief notification, along with a red light indication, may be displayed.” [0042], and further “when the type field 1121 includes a value indicating the wait signal, the data field 1122 may include a value indicating at least one of ‘notification text,’ ‘traffic light indication,’ or ‘expected wait time,’ and the value field 1123 may include a value indicating ‘stop,’ ‘red light on,’ or ‘5 seconds’ corresponding to the data field 1122.” [0125]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Choi’s traffic-light waiting-time instruction among the geographically applicable behavioral rules of the Bergstrom and Stein system. Choi teaches using V2X communication to provide a vehicle with an expected wait time displayed with a traffic-light indication so that the vehicle waits until entry is permitted. Incorporating that known instruction into Bergstrom’s geographically applicable policy framework, authenticated using Stein’s local certificate mechanism, would have predictably promoted orderly vehicle movement, reduced collision risk, and improved traffic flow.
Regarding Claim 12, Bergstrom and Stein disclose the limitations of claim 12 as recited above in the rejection of claim 11. Bergstrom further teach wherein the first privilege information is contained in a first privilege certificate that defines one or more locations at which the first set of behavioral rules applies to the vehicle, “The exchange begins at step 304 where 3GPP access node 110 communicates first configuration information to wireless communication device 105 located within a coverage area of the first network.” [0034]. “The first configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use …and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0034]. “an ANDSF policy may indicate that a specific policy is valid for a region (such as a particular country)” [0033]. Table 2 further shows the ANDS configuration object including both the geographic validity area and the applicable policy information: “ValidityArea: AnchorLatitude = 5536988 AnchorLongtitude = 836620 Radius = 40” [0032]. “RoutingRules : AccessTechnology = 1 (3GPP)” [0032]
However, Bergstrom and Stein do not explicitly teach wherein the first set of behavioral rules comprises a speed limit for the vehicle, usage of one or more special lanes by the vehicle, a waiting time for a traffic light, or a combination thereof.
Choi teaches a waiting time for a traffic light, “The wait signal and the entry signal may be displayed using a virtual traffic light user interface (UI) through a display device provided in the first vehicle 111. For the wait signal, the calculated expected wait time and a brief notification, along with a red light indication, may be displayed.” [0042], and further “when the type field 1121 includes a value indicating the wait signal, the data field 1122 may include a value indicating at least one of ‘notification text,’ ‘traffic light indication,’ or ‘expected wait time,’ and the value field 1123 may include a value indicating ‘stop,’ ‘red light on,’ or ‘5 seconds’ corresponding to the data field 1122.” [0125]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Choi’s traffic-light waiting-time instruction among the geographically applicable behavioral rules of the Bergstrom and Stein system. Choi teaches using V2X communication to provide a vehicle with an expected wait time displayed with a traffic-light indication so that the vehicle waits until entry is permitted. Incorporating that known instruction into Bergstrom’s geographically applicable policy framework, authenticated using Stein’s local certificate mechanism, would have predictably promoted orderly vehicle movement, reduced collision risk, and improved traffic flow.
Claims 4, 13, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Oh et al. (US 20220345860 A1, hereinafter “Oh”)
Regarding Claim 4, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 4 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein: the first wireless node comprises a first roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication; and the second wireless node comprises a second RSU configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via V2X communication.
Oh teaches the first wireless node comprises a first roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication; and the second wireless node comprises a second RSU configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via V2X communication, “A first RSU device 611 is connected to a V2X server 640 via an IP network through a cellular network using a base station 630. A second RSU device 612 is directly connected to the IP network, and is connected to the V2X server 640.” [0077]. “The RSUs 611 and 612 may be connected to the V2X server 640 and/or the V2X device 620 based on various wireless/wired communication protocols such as DSRC, C-V2X, cellular communication or a dedicated link.” [0078]. “The RSUs 611 and 612 receive a message from the V2X server 640 through a wireless link or wired link such as ethernet, IP network, etc., and transmit a radio signal to the V2X device 620 through a wireless link such as DSRC, C-V2X, etc. The RSUs 611 and 612 may receive a message from the V2X device 620 via a wireless link, and deliver this message to the V2X server 640 via a wireless link or a wired link.” [0078]. And further “The V2X device may be implemented based on hardware and/or software in an electronic device operated by a user such as User Equipment (UE), mobile station (MS), mobile terminal (MT), user terminal (UT), cellular phone, laptop, handheld device, tablet, drone, consumer electronics, and the like. “ [0030]
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Bergstrom’s first and second wireless access nodes as the first and second RSU devices taught by Oh, and to configure those RSUs to transmit and receive data with the UE using C-V2X communication, because Oh teaches RSUs as known wireless infrastructure for bidirectional communication with V2X devices. Such a modification would have predictably adapted Bergstrom’s overlapping-coverage configuration-management system for vehicular communication while retaining Bergstrom’s existing node-to-UE information exchange and coverage-overlap operation.
Regarding Claim 13, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 13 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein: the first wireless node comprises a first roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication; and the second wireless node comprises a second RSU configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via V2X communication.
Oh teaches the first wireless node comprises a first roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication; and the second wireless node comprises a second RSU configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via V2X communication, “A first RSU device 611 is connected to a V2X server 640 via an IP network through a cellular network using a base station 630. A second RSU device 612 is directly connected to the IP network, and is connected to the V2X server 640.” [0077]. “The RSUs 611 and 612 may be connected to the V2X server 640 and/or the V2X device 620 based on various wireless/wired communication protocols such as DSRC, C-V2X, cellular communication or a dedicated link.” [0078]. “The RSUs 611 and 612 receive a message from the V2X server 640 through a wireless link or wired link such as ethernet, IP network, etc., and transmit a radio signal to the V2X device 620 through a wireless link such as DSRC, C-V2X, etc. The RSUs 611 and 612 may receive a message from the V2X device 620 via a wireless link, and deliver this message to the V2X server 640 via a wireless link or a wired link.” [0078]. And further “The V2X device may be implemented based on hardware and/or software in an electronic device operated by a user such as User Equipment (UE), mobile station (MS), mobile terminal (MT), user terminal (UT), cellular phone, laptop, handheld device, tablet, drone, consumer electronics, and the like. “ [0030]
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Bergstrom’s first and second wireless access nodes as the first and second RSU devices taught by Oh, and to configure those RSUs to transmit and receive data with the UE using C-V2X communication, because Oh teaches RSUs as known wireless infrastructure for bidirectional communication with V2X devices. Such a modification would have predictably adapted Bergstrom’s overlapping-coverage configuration-management system for vehicular communication while retaining Bergstrom’s existing node-to-UE information exchange and coverage-overlap operation.
Regarding Claim 29, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 29 as recited above in the rejection of claim 27. However, Bergstrom and Lowe do not explicitly teach wherein the wireless node comprises a roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication.
Oh teaches wherein the wireless node comprises a roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, “A first RSU device 611 is connected to a V2X server 640 via an IP network through a cellular network using a base station 630” [0077]. “A Road Side Unit (RSU) device refers to a device that is disposed along or on a road and operates as a gateway between V2X devices (e.g., vehicles, etc.) and infrastructure.” [0005], and “The RSU device communicates with the V2X device through direct communication such as DSRC and C-V2X” [0005], and “The RSUs 611 and 612 may be connected to the V2X server 640 and/or the V2X device 620 based on various wireless/wired communication protocols such as DSRC, C-V2X, cellular communication or a dedicated link.” [0078], and further “The RSUs 611 and 612 receive a message from the V2X server 640 through a wireless link or wired link such as ethernet, IP network, etc., and transmit a radio signal to the V2X device 620 through a wireless link such as DSRC, C-V2X, etc...” [0078], and “The RSUs 611 and 612 may receive a message from the V2X device 620 via a wireless link, and deliver this message to the V2X server 640 via a wireless link or a wired link” [0078]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the wireless node of Bergstrom and Lowe system as the roadside unit (RSU) taught by Oh. Oh teaches that an RSU serves as infrastructure that communicates with V2X devices, including vehicles, through DSRC and C-V2X communications while exchanging messages with V2X server. Incorporating Oh’s known RSU implementation into the geographically applicable privilege-information framework of Bergstrom and Lowe would have predictably enabled efficient infrastructure -to-vehicle communication using standardized V2X technologies, thereby improving the reliable distribution and receipt of geographically applicable privilege information between the infrastructure and vehicles.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20180211263 A1, hereinafter “Gong”).
Regarding Claim 8, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 8 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving of the second privilege information is prior to a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region.
Gong teaches wherein the receiving of the second privilege information is prior to a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region, “ the information transmitted to the UAV may include a set of flight regulations” [0629], and “The geo-fencing device may detect the UAV and push the set of flight regulations or any other geo-fencing data to the UAV without requiring that the UAV detect the geo-fencing device.” [0634], and “some buffer may be provided between the predetermined range and the geo-fencing boundary. The buffer may ensure that the UAV may receive the set of flight regulations before reaching the boundary.” [0640], and further “The UAV may determine from the set of flight regulations that the geo-fencing boundary for the device is coming up” [0641], and “The UAV may make this determination before the UAV reaches the geo-fencing boundary, as the UAV is crossing the geo-fencing boundary, or soon after the UAV crosses the geo-fencing boundary.” [0641]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Stein system to provide the second-region behavioral rules to the UE before the UE enters the second geographical region, as taught by Gong, because advance delivery allows the mobile device to possess and evaluate the applicable rules before crossing the geographical boundary. Gong expressly teaches providing a buffer between the communication range and the regulated boundary so that the device receives the regulations before reaching the boundary. Applying that teaching to Bergstrom’s geographically dependent configuration framework would predictably reduce transition delay and permit the UE to comply immediately with the second authority’s behavioral rules upon entering the second region.
Regarding Claim 17, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 17 as recited above in the rejection of claim 10. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein the receipt of the second privilege information is prior to a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region.
Gong teaches wherein the receipt of the second privilege information is prior to a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region, “ the information transmitted to the UAV may include a set of flight regulations” [0629], and “The geo-fencing device may detect the UAV and push the set of flight regulations or any other geo-fencing data to the UAV without requiring that the UAV detect the geo-fencing device.” [0634], and “some buffer may be provided between the predetermined range and the geo-fencing boundary. The buffer may ensure that the UAV may receive the set of flight regulations before reaching the boundary.” [0640], and further “The UAV may determine from the set of flight regulations that the geo-fencing boundary for the device is coming up” [0641], and “The UAV may make this determination before the UAV reaches the geo-fencing boundary, as the UAV is crossing the geo-fencing boundary, or soon after the UAV crosses the geo-fencing boundary.” [0641]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Stein system to provide the second-region behavioral rules to the UE before the UE enters the second geographical region, as taught by Gong, because advance delivery allows the mobile device to possess and evaluate the applicable rules before crossing the geographical boundary. Gong expressly teaches providing a buffer between the communication range and the regulated boundary so that the device receives the regulations before reaching the boundary. Applying that teaching to Bergstrom’s geographically dependent configuration framework would predictably reduce transition delay and permit the UE to comply immediately with the second authority’s behavioral rules upon entering the second region.
Claims 19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Lowe (US 20100077466 A1, hereinafter “Lowe”).
Regarding Claim 19, Bergstrom teaches a non-transitory computer-readable apparatus comprising a storage medium, the storage medium having instructions configured to, when executed by one or more processors, cause a user equipment (UE) to:
based on a determination that the UE is within a first geographical region associated with a first authority, send first privilege information to a first wireless node associated with the first geographical region, the first privilege information comprising a first set of behavioral rules determined by the first authority, Bergstrom teaches the first geographical region (mapped to the first net-work coverage area), the first authority (mapped to the first network), first privilege information (mapped to first configuration information), and the first set of behavioral rules (mapped to polices, rules, and settings associated with the first configuration information): “The first network comprises access nodes 110 and the second network comprises access nodes 120.” [0015]. “Each access node has an associated coverage area. When wireless communication device 105 is located within a coverage area of a particular access node” [0116]. “The first configuration information can include information about the first network (e.g., the 3GPP network) and one or more other networks (such as a Wi-Fi network in the vicinity of wireless communication device 105).” [0035]. “As an example, first configuration information may include a policy comprising rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes, such as 3GPP access nodes 110 and Wi-Fi access nodes 120, are available to wireless communication device 105” [0035]
operate the UE based on the first set of behavioral rules within the first geographical region, “At step 308, wireless communication 105 device within the coverage area of the first network applies the first configuration information.” [0038]. “Thus, wireless communication device 105 will act according to the policies, rules, and/or settings indicated by the first configuration information.” [0038]
based on a determination that the UE is within an overlapping region, the overlapping region within a communication range of the first wireless node within the first geographical region and a communication range of a second wireless node within a second geographical region associated with a second authority, continue to operate the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules; and, “The coverage area of the first network may or may not overlap the coverage area of the second network” [0017]. “As illustrated in FIG. 1, Wi-Fi access node 120A has a full coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110A (scenario A), Wi-Fi access node 110B has partial coverage overlap with 3GPP access node 110B (scenario B), and Wi-Fi access node 120C has no coverage overlap with any 3GPP coverage (scenario C)” [0017]. “if the networks have full coverage overlap (scenario A), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to continue to act according to the first configuration information.” [0044]. “ If the networks have partial overlap (scenario B), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to continue to act according to the first configuration information as long as wireless communication device 105 is connecting with the partially overlapping Wi-Fi access node 120B” [0044]
initiate communication with the second wireless node within the second geographical region to send second privilege information to the second wireless node, the second privilege information configured to enable the UE to operate according to a second set of behavioral rules determined by the second authority while within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, Bergstrom teaches the UE entering the second network, communicating with its second access node, and operating according to second configuration information when the second-node coverage does not overlap the first-network coverage: “When wireless communication device 150 moves out of the coverage area of the first network, it may move into the coverage area of a second network” [0059]. “The second network may use the same radio access technology as the first network (such as a second 3GPP network operated by a different operator) or a different radio access technology (which may or may not be operated by a different operator).” [0059]. “FIG. 3 illustrates an example in which wireless communication device 150 moves into the coverage area of Wi-Fi access node 120.” [0059]. “The second configuration information may include information that wireless communication device 105 can use to select an access node for connection, to determine settings to use when connecting to the access node, to set mobility related parameters… and/or any other suitable polices, rules, or settings” [0060]. “As an example, the second configuration information may include a policy comprising rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes, such as 3GPP access nodes 110 and Wi-Fi access nodes 120, are available to wireless communication device 105.” [0060]. “If the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network… the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to continue to act according to the first configuration information” [0051]
However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach:
send first privilege information to a first wireless node associated with the first geographical region;
initiate communication with the second wireless node within the second graphical region to send second privilege information to the second wireless node.
Lowe teaches send first privilege information to a first wireless node associated with the first geographical region, by teaching a mobile device storing credential information and transmitting that credential information to a reader, “As used herein, a “credential” or “credential information” is any data, set of data, encryption scheme, key, and/or transmission protocol used by a particular mobile device to verify its authenticity with a reader/interrogator.” [0012]. “Credential information is verified at the reader then transmitted to the controller in order to notify security personnel or the like about the activity that has just taken place at the reader.” [0011]. “For example, the credential information associated with a particular mobile device may not change, but the information will be erased, expire, or the mobile device may not be allowed to transmit its credential information if it does not receive the periodic enablement messages from the controller.” [0013]
initiate communication with the second wireless node within the second graphical region to send second privilege information to the second wireless node, Lowe teaches that a mobile device communicates stored credential information to a reader for verification: “As used herein, a “credential” or “credential information” is any data, set of data, encryption scheme, key, and/or transmission protocol used by a particular mobile device to verify its authenticity with a reader/interrogator.” [0012]. “Credential information is verified at the reader then transmitted to the controller in order to notify security personnel or the like about the activity that has just taken place at the reader.” [0011]. “The RF receiver/transmitter 230 also allows the mobile device 112 to communicate with other devices connected to the communications network 116.” [0041]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless communication system of Bergstrom to configure the user equipment to transmit its stored privilege or credential information to a wireless node as taught by Lowe, so that the wireless node can verify the user equipment and determine the applicable operational rules or permission before permitting operation within its coverage area. Incorporating Low’s transmission of credential information into Bergstrom’s overlapping-network configuration management would have predictably improved authentication and rule determination while using known communication techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 23, Bergstrom and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 23 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. Bergstrom further teaches wherein the sending of the second privilege information to the second wireless node is based on a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, “The out-of-coverage configuration management rule further indicates to determine whether the coverage area of the second access node overlaps the coverage area of the first network” [0050], and “The coverage overlap determination may be made dynamically “ [0050], and “If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051]
Regarding Claim 25, Bergstrom and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 25 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. Bergstrom further teaches based on a determination that the UE is within the second geographical region and not within the overlapping region, switching, from the operating of the UE according to the first set of behavioral rules, to operating the UE that is based on the second set of behavioral rules; wherein the second set of behavioral rules is different from the first set of behavioral rules, “If the coverage area of the second access node does not overlap the coverage area of the first network (such as scenario C described with respect to FIG. 1), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule indicates to configure wireless communication device 105 to act according to second configuration information.” [0051]. “If the networks have no overlap (scenario C), the out-of-coverage configuration management rule may indicate to discard or refrain from acting according to the first configuration information … such that wireless communication device acts according to different configuration information.” [0044]. “The second configuration information may be an alternative configuration from the 3GPP network, a default configuration … or a configuration received from a second network (such as the Wi-Fi network).” [0048]. “The second configuration information could include a second policy comprising different rules for selecting an access node for connection when multiple access nodes are available to the wireless communication device.” [0048].
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Lowe (US 20100077466 A1, hereinafter “Lowe”), and further in view of Stein et al. (US 20210044967 A1, hereinafter “Stein”).
Regarding Claim 20, Bergstrom and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 20 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. However, Bergstrom and Lowe do not teach wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle.
Stein teaches wherein the UE comprises a mobile UE, the mobile UE comprising a vehicle, or co-located with the vehicle, “The automotive devices may include mobile automotive devices, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0047], and “The mobile automotive device 202 such as the automotive 202A, 202B, 202E, 202F, 202I, 202J, 202L, 202M and/or 202P may include, for example, vehicular devices, vehicle mounted devices, pedestrian carried devices and/or the like.” [0105], and “In another example, the automotive device 202A may again be the autonomous vehicle system controlling a vehicle’ [0176]
It would have been oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Bergstrom and Low, as modified by Stein to employ a mobile UE comprising a vehicle or being co-located with the vehicle as taught by Stein. Stein teaches that its geographically managed authorization system is implanted using mobile automotive devices, including vehicular devices, vehicle-mounted devices, and mobile devices carried by vehicle occupants, which move between different geographical areas and interact with different authorization entities associated with those areas. Applying Bergstrom geographically applicable configuration management to Stein’s mobile vehicular UE would have predictably enabled the same configuration policies and behavioral rules to be managed while the mobile UE traverses different geographical regions, yielding the expected benefit of maintaining appropriate region-specific configuration and authorization as the vehicle moves between coverage areas.
Regarding Claim 22, Bergstrom and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 22 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. However, Bergstrom and Lowe do not explicitly teach wherein the first authority and the second authority are associated with respective first and second regulatory entities governing the first geographical region and the second geographical region.
Stein teaches wherein the first authority and the second authority are associated with respective first and second regulatory entities governing the first geographical region and the second geographical region, Stein teaches geographically associated authorization entities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas, “The local AE is adapted to manage the identity authentication for a group of the plurality of automotive devices currently located in an associated geographical area” [0005], and “each of the AEs in the a lowest AE level is adapted to manage the identity posture evaluation for a group of the plurality of automotive devices currently located in a respective associated geographical area” [0014], and “the geographical area 108(1) may interact with the AE 118(1)” [0106], and “the automotive device 202A enters the geographical area 108(2) and starts interacting with a local AE associate with the geographical area 108(2)” [0141], and also “one or more AEs of one or more of the AE levels 110 may be associated with at least partially overlapping geographical areas” [0099]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate the geographically applicable behavioral rules and privilege information of Bergstrom with the geographically specific Authorization Entities taught by Stein because Stein provides region-specific authorities responsible for managing devices within their respective geographical areas. Incorporating Stein’s regional authority structure into Bergstrom’s geographically dependent configuration framework would have predictably enabled the behavioral rules and privileges to be administered by the appropriate governing authority as a vehicle moves between different geographical regions.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Lowe (US 20100077466 A1, hereinafter “Lowe”), and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20220345860 A1, hereinafter “Oh”).
Regarding Claim 21, Bergstrom and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 21 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. However, Bergstrom and Lowe do not explicitly teach wherein: the first wireless node comprises a first roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication; and the second wireless node comprises a second RSU configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via V2X communication.
Oh teaches the first wireless node comprises a first roadside unit (RSU) configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication; and the second wireless node comprises a second RSU configured to transmit or receive data with the UE via V2X communication, “A first RSU device 611 is connected to a V2X server 640 via an IP network through a cellular network using a base station 630. A second RSU device 612 is directly connected to the IP network, and is connected to the V2X server 640.” [0077]. “The RSUs 611 and 612 may be connected to the V2X server 640 and/or the V2X device 620 based on various wireless/wired communication protocols such as DSRC, C-V2X, cellular communication or a dedicated link.” [0078]. “The RSUs 611 and 612 receive a message from the V2X server 640 through a wireless link or wired link such as ethernet, IP network, etc., and transmit a radio signal to the V2X device 620 through a wireless link such as DSRC, C-V2X, etc. The RSUs 611 and 612 may receive a message from the V2X device 620 via a wireless link, and deliver this message to the V2X server 640 via a wireless link or a wired link.” [0078]. And further “The V2X device may be implemented based on hardware and/or software in an electronic device operated by a user such as User Equipment (UE), mobile station (MS), mobile terminal (MT), user terminal (UT), cellular phone, laptop, handheld device, tablet, drone, consumer electronics, and the like. “ [0030]
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Bergstrom’s first and second wireless access nodes as the first and second RSU devices taught by Oh, and to configure those RSUs to transmit and receive data with the UE using C-V2X communication, because Oh teaches RSUs as known wireless infrastructure for bidirectional communication with V2X devices. Such a modification would have predictably adapted Bergstrom’s overlapping-coverage configuration-management system for vehicular communication while retaining Bergstrom’s existing node-to-UE information exchange and coverage-overlap operation.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Lowe (US 20100077466 A1, hereinafter “Lowe”), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20200160704 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 24, Bergstrom and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 24 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. However, Bergstrom and Lowe do not explicitly teach wherein the first set of behavioral rules comprises a speed limit for a vehicle, usage of one or more special lanes by the vehicle, a waiting time for a traffic light, or a combination thereof.
Choi teaches a waiting time for a traffic light, “The wait signal and the entry signal may be displayed using a virtual traffic light user interface (UI) through a display device provided in the first vehicle 111. For the wait signal, the calculated expected wait time and a brief notification, along with a red light indication, may be displayed.” [0042], and further “when the type field 1121 includes a value indicating the wait signal, the data field 1122 may include a value indicating at least one of ‘notification text,’ ‘traffic light indication,’ or ‘expected wait time,’ and the value field 1123 may include a value indicating ‘stop,’ ‘red light on,’ or ‘5 seconds’ corresponding to the data field 1122.” [0125]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the geographically applicable privilege and behavioral-rule system of Bergstrom, Stein , and Lowe to include Choi’s vehicle waiting-time instruction associated with a traffic-light indication. Choi teaches using V2X communications to provide a vehicle with a calculated expected wait time together with a red traffic-light indication so that the vehicle waits until entry is permitted. Incorporating Choi’s known traffic-control instruction into the geographically applicable behavioral rules of Bergstrom, Stein, and Lowe would have predictably enabled the vehicle to receive and follow a location-applicable waiting rule, thereby promoting orderly vehicle movement, reducing the likelihood of collisions, and improving traffic flow.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Lowe (US 20100077466 A1, hereinafter “Lowe”), and further in view of Schiegg et al. (US 20220295246 A1, hereinafter “Schiegg”).
Regarding Claim 26, Bergstrom, Stein, and Lowe disclose the limitations of claim 26 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. However, Bergstrom and Lowe do not explicitly teach:
determine a failure of the initiated communication with the second wireless node;
based on the determination of the failure, implement one or more fallback processes to send the second privilege information, the one or more fallback processes comprising an increase of message priority with the second wireless node, allocation of more resources for the communication with the second wireless node, initiation of multiple communication with the second wireless node, initiation of communication with a third wireless node, or a combination thereof; and
during the one or more fallback processes, operate according to a third set of behavioral rules.
Because the fallback alternative are connected by “or”, only one listed fallback process must be shown. Therefore, the rejection may rely solely on Schiegg’s express teaching of increasing message priority.
Schiegg teaches determine a failure of the initiated communication with the second wireless node, “In the shown case, the apparatus 400 is not able to receive the first V2X message object Obj #A. That is, the deciding means 120 detects that one of the known recipients in the vicinity was not able to receive the first V2X message object” [0046], and also “The receiving means 308 are able to determine a status of the reception. That is, the receiving means 308 can positively acknowledge and/or negatively acknowledge the reception of the first V2X message object Obj #A or of the associated V2X message via the feedback f #A3.” [0041]
based on the determination of the failure, implement one or more fallback processes to send the second privilege information, “Accordingly, a retransmission of information that is associated with the type of the first V2X message Obj # 1 is triggered as shown in the following.” [0046], and “Decision or processing means 120 decide, based on the at least one feedback f #A2, f #A3, whether to transmit the at least one second V2X message object Obj #B that is associated with the service type.” [0045], and “Transmitting means (i.e., transmitter) 122 transmit, via a transmission opportunity on the at least one V2X radio channel, the at least one second V2X message object Obj #B that is associated with the service type, if the decision indicates that the at least one second V2X message object Obj #B is to be transmitted.” [0050]
the fallback processes comprising an increase of message priority with the second wireless node, “For example, if the estimated channel reliability decreases, the transmission priority of this message type is increased (i.e. the message transmission frequency increases), and vice versa.” [0048], and further “If the reception indicator NCR_n is low (or has decreased with respect to a previous value), the V2X channel has an estimated low (lower) reliability.” [0070], and “The transmission priority of this V2X service type and the associated message objects is then increased (i.e. messages of this type are transmitted more frequently). In this way, the probability for expected receivers of receiving the V2X message timely is increased.” [0070], and “In order to enable V_400 to receive the CAM as soon as possible, the merging vehicle V_100 increases the transmission priority of its next CAM, thereby reducing the time interval between future CAM transmissions.” [0072]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bergstrom, as supplemented by Stein and Lowe, to implement Schiegg’s failure-responsive retransmission procedure, including increasing transmission priority after unsuccessful reception, in order to improve the likelihood that the intended recipient successfully receives the transmitted privilege information following a communication failure. retransmit it to the intended second wireless node. One would have been motivated to make the modification because Schiegg teaches that increasing transmission priority following reduced reception reliability.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C $103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20140199983 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Yilma et al. (US 20220327927 A1, hereinafter “Yilma”).
Regarding Claim 30, Bergstrom discloses the limitations of claim 30 as recited above in the rejection of claim 27. However, Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein:
the set of behavioral rules associated with the first geographical region is determined by a regulatory authority governing the first geographical region; and the set of behavioral rules comprises a speed limit for a vehicle, usage of one or more special lanes by the vehicle, a waiting time for a traffic light, or a combination thereof.
Yilma teaches geographically applicable road/traffic policies prescribed by a public authority, the set of behavioral rules associated with the first geographical region is determined by a regulatory authority governing the first geographical region, “In an embodiment, the vRTSGS instance 102 can use a map service 106 to determine the type of road (i.e., highway, main road, city road, street road, village road etc.) and the road/traffic policies prescribed by some external entity, such as a public authority, for the particular RZ 122.” [0062], and “The content of the module can be adapted to the different regulations in force in different locations; thus, the TPM 714 can adapt to regulations of different countries, and local authorities can interact with this module to enforce new or modify existing traffic regulations.” [0089]
the set of behavioral rules comprises a speed limit for a vehicle, usage of one or more special lanes by the vehicle, a waiting time for a traffic light, or a combination thereof, “The TPM 714 furnishes road/traffic policies/rules (e.g., speed limits, warnings, restrictions, etc.) that are prescribed for road segments by an external public authority 750.” [0089], and “For example, for the same situation map, but on a city road with a max speed limit of 50 kmph, the vRTSGS instance 102 may derive a speed limit of 30 kmph for all vehicles in that particular RZ 122. Thus, the speed limit is one of the prescribed actions derived by the vRTSGS instance 102.” [0064]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bergstrom, as supplemented by Lowe, so that the behavioral rules applicable to a geographical region are based on road and traffic polices prescribed by the public authority responsible for that region, as taught by Yilma, and include region-specific traffic rules such as speed limit, in order to ensure that vehicles operate in accordance with the traffic regulations applicable to their current geographical region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
DAMNJANOVIC et al. (US 20150124743 A1) - Techniques for using carrier aggregation in dual connectivity wireless communications, discloses Certain aspects of the present disclosure relate to procedures for aggregation in dual connectivity. In one aspect, a wireless device may receive configuration information to communicate with a first network entity (e.g., master eNodeB) through a first primary cell (PCell) of a corresponding group of cells of the first network entity, and with a second network entity (e.g., secondary eNodeB) through a second primary cell (PCellSCG) of a corresponding group of cells of the second network entity. The second network entity may be non-collocated with the first network entity. The wireless device may include an information convergence entity (e.g., PDCP entity) that aggregates the configuration information from the first and second network entities when the wireless device is in communication with both entities. In another aspect, the second network entity may have one of the cells in the corresponding group of cells operate as the second primary cell.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG PHUOC LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:30 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
SANG PHUOC. LE
Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/SANG PHUOC LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights