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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 18th, 2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on November 18th, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to KR10-2024-0009735 dated January 22nd, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a vehicle". It is unclear whether the vehicle mentioned in this claim is intended to be the vehicle in the failure state or a different vehicle. Claim 6 is additionally rejected due to its dependence on claim 5.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an adjacent driving negotiation apparatus”. It is unclear whether the apparatus mentioned in this claim is intended to be the same adjacent apparatus of claims 7 and 12 or is an additional adjacent apparatus. Claim 15 is additionally rejected due to its dependence on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of negotiating driving, and claim 7 is directed to an apparatus for negotiating driving. Therefore, claims 1-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A driving negotiation method comprising:
transmitting, by a first processor of a first driving negotiation apparatus of a first roadside unit (RSU), a first packet including state information of a plurality of first vehicles within first coverage of the first RSU to a second driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent second RSU, when completing driving negotiations;
broadcasting, by a second processor of the second driving negotiation apparatus, failure vehicle information to at least one second vehicle within second coverage of the second RSU when a vehicle in a failure state is present in the first packet; and
transmitting, by the second processor, a second packet including state information of the at least one second vehicle and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles to a third driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent third RSU.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, receiving packet information and transmitting the information in the context of this claim encompasses observing the states of the vehicles in a predetermined area and saying that information to another driver of a vehicle in the area. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 7, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A driving negotiation method comprising:
transmitting, by a first processor of a first driving negotiation apparatus of a first roadside unit (RSU), a first packet including state information of a plurality of first vehicles within first coverage of the first RSU to a second driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent second RSU, when completing driving negotiations;
broadcasting, by a second processor of the second driving negotiation apparatus, failure vehicle information to at least one second vehicle within second coverage of the second RSU when a vehicle in a failure state is present in the first packet; and
transmitting, by the second processor, a second packet including state information of the at least one second vehicle and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles to a third driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent third RSU.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of processors, driving negotiation apparatuses and road side units, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic computers to perform the processes. In particular the transmitting, and broadcasting steps amount to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processors, apparatuses, and road side units merely describe how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a vehicle control environment. The negotiation apparatuses are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the transmitting and broadcasting steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processors, negotiation apparatuses and road side units amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “transmitting” and “broadcasting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data
over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely
generic manner. The additional limitations of the road side units and negotiation apparatuses does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 7 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-15 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-15, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-6 and 8-15 are patent ineligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-20230143929 (hereinafter, “Yun”).
Regarding claim 7 Yun discloses a driving negotiation apparatus (see at least fig. 2; block diagram illustrating a major configuration of a driving negotiation apparatus) comprising:
a communication module configured to support vehicle to everything (V2X) communication (see at least [0012]; “a driving negotiation apparatus includes a wireless communication module configured to support vehicle to everything (V2X) communication”); and
a processor connected to the communication module (see at least [0012]; “at least one processor connected to the wireless communication module”),
wherein the processor is configured to transmit, to an adjacent driving negotiation apparatus (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 or the WCM 150 may be installed in the road-side equipment (RSE) or an RSU…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link”), a first packet including state information of a plurality of first vehicles within coverage of the driving negotiation apparatus when completing driving negotiations of a driving negotiation request vehicle (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet).
Regarding claim 8 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
when receiving a cooperation request message from the driving negotiation request vehicle (see at least [0066]; “the processor 110 of the driving negotiation apparatus 100 may receive a cooperative request message CooperativeRequestMsg from a first vehicle”), complete the driving negotiations of the driving negotiation request vehicle by:
generating a cooperation relay message that comprises a type code of additional information necessary for negotiations in the cooperation request message (see at least [0066]; “the processor…generate a cooperative relay message obtained by adding a type code of additional information required for a negotiation to the cooperative request message”),
broadcasting the cooperation relay message to the plurality of first vehicles (see at least [0066]; “broadcast the cooperative relay message and the relevant message to surrounding vehicles,” the surrounding vehicles correspond to the plurality of first vehicles), receiving cooperation reply messages corresponding to the cooperation relay message from the plurality of first vehicles (see at least [0066]; “receive a cooperative relay message and/or cooperative response message CooperativeResponseMsg corresponding to the relevant message from each of at least one second vehicle among the surrounding vehicles”), and
transmitting a message for negotiability or non-negotiability to the driving negotiation request vehicle based on the cooperation reply message (see at least [0066]; “transmit a message indicating that a negotiation is possible or impossible to the first vehicle”).
Regarding claim 9 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the first packet includes at least one of driving negotiation apparatus identification information, coverage flags, a vehicle identifier, or a failure mode (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet, and [0079]; “the cooperative request message or the cooperative response message may include DEs about a timestamp, a vehicle identifier (ID,” the cooperative request message is a type of BSM).
Regarding claim 11 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the adjacent driving negotiation apparatus is installed on a following road of the driving negotiation apparatus in a driving direction of the driving negotiation request vehicle (see at least [0064]; “the driving navigation apparatus 100 may be disposed at regular intervals…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal back
Regarding claim 12 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the processor is configured to, when receiving a packet from the adjacent driving negotiation apparatus, analyze the received packet and broadcasts failure vehicle information to at least one vehicle within coverage of the driving negotiation apparatus when a vehicle in a failure state is present in the received packet (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 or the WCM 150 may be installed in the road-side equipment (RSE) or an RSU…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link” the messages are able to be transferred to RSUs other than the first RSU in which the message originates. See also [0066]; “the processor 110 of the driving negotiation apparatus 100 may…broadcast the cooperative relay message and the relevant message to surrounding vehicles,” this occurs when a cooperative request is received which is done to [0055]; “ensure stability against…an unexpected situation,” under broadest reasonable interpretation a vehicle in an unexpected situation can be interpreted as a vehicle in failure state as the applicant does not provide a definition as to what qualifies as meeting a failure state in the claims).
Regarding claim 13 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the adjacent driving negotiation apparatus is installed on a leading road of the driving negotiation apparatus in a driving direction of the driving negotiation request vehicle (see at least [0064]; “the driving navigation apparatus 100 may be disposed at regular intervals…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link”).
Regarding claim 14 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit, to an adjacent driving negotiation apparatus, a packet comprising state information of the at least one vehicle included in the received packet and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230143929 (hereinafter, “Yun”) in view of CN-107733459-A (hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1 Yun discloses a driving negotiation method (see at least Fig. 39, the method of notifying other vehicles of a source vehicles warning corresponds to negotiating, as it allows the vehicles to communicate to avoid one another) comprising:
transmitting, by a first processor of a first driving negotiation apparatus of a first roadside unit (RSU) (see at least [0054]; “For convenience of description, the driving negotiation apparatus 100 will be described as a device that is combined with the RSU”), a first packet including state information of a plurality of first vehicles within first coverage of the first RSU (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet) to a second driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent second RSU, when completing driving negotiations (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 or the WCM 150 may be installed in the road-side equipment (RSE) or an RSU…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link”);
broadcasting, by a second processor of the second driving negotiation apparatus, failure vehicle information to at least one second vehicle within second coverage of the second RSU when a vehicle in a failure state is present in the first packet (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 or the WCM 150 may be installed in the road-side equipment (RSE) or an RSU…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link” the messages are able to be transferred to RSUs other than the first RSU in which the message originates. See also [0066]; “the processor 110 of the driving negotiation apparatus 100 may…broadcast the cooperative relay message and the relevant message to surrounding vehicles,” this occurs when a cooperative request is received which is done to [0055]; “ensure stability against…an unexpected situation,” under broadest reasonable interpretation a vehicle in an unexpected situation can be interpreted as a failure state).
Yun does not disclose transmitting, by the second processor, a second packet including state information of the at least one second vehicle and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles to a third driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent third RSU.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting, by the second processor, a second packet including state information of the at least one second vehicle and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles to a third driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent third RSU (see at least [Page 7, paragraph 3]; “In the recipient-centric communication, the source node detects the risk through its local sensors and gives Its neighboring nodes distribute information. The neighboring node merges this information with its local information state and distributes the merged information to their neighbors,” the merged information corresponds to the second packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving negotiation method of Yun with the information merge of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing road safety and extending the coverage of ad hoc networks (see at least Wang; [Page 7, paragraph 3]).
Regarding claim 2 Yun in view of Wang renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein one or both of the first packet or the second packet includes at least one of driving negotiation apparatus identification information, coverage flags, a vehicle identifier, or a failure mode (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet, and [0079]; “the cooperative request message or the cooperative response message may include DEs about a timestamp, a vehicle identifier (ID,” the cooperative request message is a type of BSM).
Regarding claim 5 Yun in view of Wang renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yun discloses further comprising:
after transmitting the second packet to the third driving negotiation apparatus (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet, and [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 or the WCM 150 may be installed in the road-side equipment (RSE) or an RSU…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link”),
broadcasting, by a third processor of the third driving negotiation apparatus, the failure vehicle information to at least one third vehicle within third coverage of the third RSU when the vehicle in the failure state is present in the second packet (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 or the WCM 150 may be installed in the road-side equipment (RSE) or an RSU…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link” the messages are able to be transferred to RSUs other than the first RSU in which the message originates. See also [0066]; “the processor 110 of the driving negotiation apparatus 100 may…broadcast the cooperative relay message and the relevant message to surrounding vehicles,” this occurs when a cooperative request is received which is done to [0055]; “ensure stability against…an unexpected situation,” under broadest reasonable interpretation a vehicle in an unexpected situation can be interpreted as a vehicle in failure state as the applicant does not provide a definition as to what qualifies as meeting a failure state in the claims), and
Yun does not disclose transmitting, by the second processor, a second packet including state information of the at least one second vehicle and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles to a third driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent third RSU.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting, by the second processor, a second packet including state information of the at least one second vehicle and the state information of the plurality of first vehicles to a third driving negotiation apparatus of an adjacent third RSU (see at least [Page 7, paragraph 3]; “In the recipient-centric communication, the source node detects the risk through its local sensors and gives Its neighboring nodes distribute information. The neighboring node merges this information with its local information state and distributes the merged information to their neighbors,” the merged information corresponds to the second packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving negotiation method of Yun with the information merge of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing road safety and extending the coverage of ad hoc networks (see at least Wang; [Page 7, paragraph 3]).
Regarding claim 6 Yun in view of Wang renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus are sequentially installed in a driving direction of a vehicle (see at least [0064]; “the driving navigation apparatus 100 may be disposed at regular intervals…the plurality of driving negotiation apparatuses may be connected to each other through an ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link and connected to a core network and may exchange information with each other through the ideal backhaul link or non-ideal backhaul link”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Wang, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of US-20250097878 (hereinafter, “Tandalam”).
Regarding claim 3 Yun in view of Wang renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein…the failure mode indicates whether a corresponding vehicle fails see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet, and the driving state would include failures).
Yun does not teach wherein: the coverage flags include inner coverage and outer coverage.
Tandalam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the coverage flags include inner coverage and outer coverage (see at least [0035]; “Various aspects relate generally to timing synchronization (e.g., using SLSSs). Some aspects more specifically relate to timing synchronization in C-V2X implementations with limited or no GNSS coverage. In some aspects, a plurality of UEs, such as RSUs, located in an area of limited or no GNSS coverage may circulate SLSS neighbor information, such as in the form of an SLSS neighbors list (SNL). The SLSS neighbor information may include one or more of an index number, an SLSS identifier (ID), a timing source in-coverage flag, an RSU ID, a hop ID, a geographic location, a transmission synchronization offset (e.g., a synchronization offset used for transmission of SLSSs, such as an SLSS synchronization offset), a synchronization source, and/or a UTC time.” The road side units include coverage flag information when transmitting data to other roadside units).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving negotiation method of Yun as modified by Wang with the coverage flags of Tandalam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a deadlock scenario between RSUs (see at least Tandalam; [0038]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20230136285 (hereinafter, “Chujo”).
Regarding claim 4 Yun in view of Wang renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein a vehicle state information…is managed by each of the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet).
Yun does not disclose wherein a vehicle state information size…is adjusted depending on resources of each of the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus.
Chujo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a vehicle state information size…is adjusted depending on resources of each of the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus (see at least [0064]; “The data size adjustment unit 11d performs processing for adjusting the size of data to be transmitted to the roadside wireless communication device 2 based on the communication amount information received from the roadside wireless communication device 2. The data size adjustment unit 11d determines the free capacity of the wireless communication of the roadside wireless communication device 2 based on the communication amount information. If the size of the data to be transmitted to the roadside wireless communication device 2 exceeds the free capacity obtained based on the communication amount information, the data size adjusting unit 11d performs processing for reducing (compressing) the size of this data,” the roadside wireless communication device constitutes an RSU and data size is adjusted based on the capacity that the desired RSU has, additionally, as taught by Yun the negotiation apparatus can be combined with an RSU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving negotiation method of Yun as modified by Wang with the data compression of Chujo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing data of an amount that cannot be handled from being transmitted from the roadside wireless communication device (see at least Chujo; [0128]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of US-20250097878 (hereinafter, “Tandalam”).
Regarding claim 10 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein…the failure mode indicates whether a corresponding vehicle fails see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet, and the driving state would include failures).
Yun does not teach wherein: the coverage flags include inner coverage and outer coverage.
Tandalam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the coverage flags include inner coverage and outer coverage (see at least [0035]; “Various aspects relate generally to timing synchronization (e.g., using SLSSs). Some aspects more specifically relate to timing synchronization in C-V2X implementations with limited or no GNSS coverage. In some aspects, a plurality of UEs, such as RSUs, located in an area of limited or no GNSS coverage may circulate SLSS neighbor information, such as in the form of an SLSS neighbors list (SNL). The SLSS neighbor information may include one or more of an index number, an SLSS identifier (ID), a timing source in-coverage flag, an RSU ID, a hop ID, a geographic location, a transmission synchronization offset (e.g., a synchronization offset used for transmission of SLSSs, such as an SLSS synchronization offset), a synchronization source, and/or a UTC time.” The road side units include coverage flag information when transmitting data to other roadside units).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving negotiation method of Yun with the coverage flags of Tandalam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a deadlock scenario between RSUs (see at least Tandalam; [0038]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of US-20230136285 (hereinafter, “Chujo”).
Regarding claim 15 Yun discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Yun discloses wherein a vehicle state information…is managed by the driving negotiation apparatus (see at least [0065]; “driving negotiation apparatuses may share driving states, driving plans, etc. of vehicles through base safety messages,” the base safety message corresponds to the first packet).
Yun does not disclose wherein a vehicle state information size…is adjusted depending on resources of the driving negotiation apparatus.
Chujo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a vehicle state information size…is adjusted depending on resources of the driving negotiation apparatus (see at least [0064]; “The data size adjustment unit 11d performs processing for adjusting the size of data to be transmitted to the roadside wireless communication device 2 based on the communication amount information received from the roadside wireless communication device 2. The data size adjustment unit 11d determines the free capacity of the wireless communication of the roadside wireless communication device 2 based on the communication amount information. If the size of the data to be transmitted to the roadside wireless communication device 2 exceeds the free capacity obtained based on the communication amount information, the data size adjusting unit 11d performs processing for reducing (compressing) the size of this data,” the roadside wireless communication device constitutes an RSU and data size is adjusted based on the capacity that the desired RSU has, additionally, as taught by Yun the negotiation apparatus can be combined with an RSU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving negotiation method of Yun with the data compression of Chujo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing data of an amount that cannot be handled from being transmitted from the roadside wireless communication device (see at least Chujo; [0128]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20200236521 teaches a method and system for emergency vehicle-to-anything notification so that neighboring vehicles may negotiate with the impaired vehicle and other neighboring vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
4/9/26
Prosecution Insights