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 July 13th, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed on July 13th, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection; maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections; and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 13th, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 1-15, as put forth on pages 7-11, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “as amended, claims 1 and 7 are not directed to a mere mental process…A human cannot mentally transmit V2X packets between RSU-based driving negotiation apparatuses, cannot mentally manage machine-readable state information in processor-accessible memory/buffers according to a predetermined management specification, and cannot mentally implement the claimed K/M-based state-information management in a distributed RSU chain. The amended claims are therefore not directed to an abstract mental process…Even assuming, arguendo, that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as involving information transmission, the each of amended claims 1 and 7 as a whole integrates that alleged concept into a practical application. The specification identifies a technical problem in conventional RSU-based driving negotiation systems: because driving negotiations are performed only within the coverage of a corresponding RSU, a vehicle state on a leading road outside that RSU's coverage cannot be known, and the range of driving negotiations is limited. The claimed subject matter addresses this technical problem by enabling vehicle state information, including failure vehicle information, to be propagated among driving negotiation apparatuses installed in different RSUs. See e.g., instant specification at pars. [0009]-[0010] and [0045]-[0049]”.
As to point (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed amendments do not contain mental processes, Examiner asserts that observing data and analyzing it is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of the road side units. The claim encompasses a person obtaining data and analyzing it to form a judgment. The mere nominal recitation of road side units and processors does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Additionally, the added limitations merely state the management of the state information at a high level of generality and do not go into detail regarding what the management entails; The system remains recited at a high level of generality and merely automates well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the art. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are maintained.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 7, as put forth on pages 12-13, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Yun does not disclose this directional leading-road/following-road packet-processing architecture. Rather, Applicant specifically submits that Yun’s disclosure that plural driving negotiation apparatuses may exchange information over a backhaul link is a generic disclosure of inter-apparatus information exchange. Yun does not disclose a processor of a driving negotiation apparatus configured to receive a packet from a leading-road adjacent apparatus, analyze the received packet for a vehicle in failure state, broadcast failure vehicle information to vehicles within current coverage, and then transmit a packet including both received state information and local state information to a following-road adjacent apparatus, in the manner now recited in claim 7”.
As to point (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yun discloses [0064] roadside units placed at regular intervals along the road and capable of exchanging information with one another. It would be obvious that since the roadside units are placed at intervals along the road, the roadside units would be capable of communicating with other units both leading and following one another. Therefore, Examiner maintains that this limitation remains taught by Yun.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 7, as put forth on page 13, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “amended claim 7 recites the K/M-based state-information management limitation. Yun does not disclose a Kth driving negotiation apparatus through Nth sequentially installed driving negotiation apparatuses, nor does Yun disclose managing vehicle state information differently depending on whether K-1 is less than M or K-1 is equal to or greater than M, where M is a predetermined vehicle state information size. Yun’s general disclosure that driving states and driving plans may be shared through BSMs or PVDs does not anticipate this specific state-management configuration.
As to point (c), Examiner partially agrees. Examiner asserts that Yun discloses several driving apparatuses sequentially installed along a road as mentioned at [0064]. However, examiner agrees that Yun does not appear to disclose managing vehicle state information differently depending on the number of negotiation apparatuses. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CN-107733459-A (hereinafter, “Wang”) previously applied to dependent claims and US-20170339510 (hereinafter, “Condeixa”).
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 7, as put forth on pages 14-15, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “The Office Action relies on Wang as allegedly disclosing the concept that a neighboring node may merge information with local information and distribute the merged information to neighboring nodes. Applicant respectfully submits, however, that, even if Wang is interpreted as disclosing generic merging and forwarding of information, that disclosure is materially different from the subject matter of the amended claim 7. The amended claim 7 does not merely require merging information and forwarding it to a neighbor. The amended claim 7 requires a specific state-management rule tied to a sequential arrangement of RSU-based driving negotiation apparatuses and a predetermined vehicle state information size M. Applicant respectfully submits that Wang's generic merge-and-forward concept would, if anything, suggest continued propagation of merged information through neighboring nodes. Wang does not teach or suggest limiting the managed vehicle state information of a Kth driving negotiation apparatus according to the K/M-based rule recited in the amended claims. Nor does Wang teach selecting, overwriting, or otherwise managing vehicle state information based on a predetermined management specification of an RSU-based driving negotiation apparatus”.
As to point (d), Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view US-20170339510 (hereinafter, “Condeixa”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended limitations to the independent claims do not contain the required support from the specification and instead appears to contradict the teachings of the specification. Based upon review of Applicant’s specification specifically paragraph [0091-0092] of Applicant’s specification when the negotiation apparatus is greater than the set management specification number, the first vehicle state information is no longer included; “the fifth driving negotiation apparatus 200e may manage the remaining…except the first vehicle state information of the first driving negotiation apparatus 200a that is farthest from the fifth driving negotiation apparatus”. This is further contradicted by what is shown in fig. 6 of applicant’s drawings, the apparatus at most appears to be containing the three most recent vehicle state information.
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 1-3, 5, and 7-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the phrase "wherein K is a natural number of 2 or more and 3/N or less" renders the claim unclear because K cannot be both 2 or more and 3/N or less. Claims 2-3, 5, and 8-10 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 7.
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 1-3, 5, and 7-10 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,
wherein the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus are sequentially installed based on a driving direction, and
wherein a Kth processor of a Kth driving negotiation apparatus is configured to:
manage state information of the first vehicles to state information of K-lth vehicle when K-1 is less than M, and
manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M,
wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more, K is a natural number of 2 or more and N or less, and M is a predetermined vehicle state information size and is a natural number of N or less.
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,
wherein the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus are sequentially installed based on a driving direction, and
wherein a Kth processor of a Kth driving negotiation apparatus is configured to:
manage state information of the first vehicles to state information of K-lth vehicle when K-1 is less than M, and
manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M,
wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more, K is a natural number of 2 or more and N or less, and M is a predetermined vehicle state information size and is a natural number of N or less.
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 2-3, 5 and 8-10 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-3, 5 and 8-10, 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 2-3, 5 and 8-10 are patent ineligible.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230143929 (hereinafter, “Yun”) in view of CN-107733459-A (hereinafter, “Wang”) and US-20170339510 (hereinafter, “Condeixa”).
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)…
…wherein the first driving negotiation apparatus, the second driving negotiation apparatus, and the third driving negotiation apparatus are sequentially installed based on a driving direction (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus may be disposed at regular intervals along the road”), 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…
…wherein a Kth processor of a Kth driving negotiation apparatus is configured to:
manage state information of the first vehicles to state information of K-lth vehicle when K-1 is less than M, and
manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M,
wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more, K is a natural number of 2 or more and N or less, and M is a predetermined vehicle state information size and is a natural number of N or less.
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)…
wherein a Kth processor of a Kth driving negotiation apparatus is configured to:
manage state information of the first vehicles to state information of K-1th vehicle when K-1 is less than M (see at least [Page 7, paragraph 2-4]; “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 space of information and the timing of distribution are controlled by the received node as the carrier. After receiving the information, the receiving node determines the relevance of the information to the neighbor nodes and decides whether to distribute this information,” the receiving node manages both its information and the information from its neighbor as long as there is enough space), and
manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M (see at least [Page 7, paragraph 2-4]; “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 space of information and the timing of distribution are controlled by the received node as the carrier. After receiving the information, the receiving node determines the relevance of the information to the neighbor nodes and decides whether to distribute this information,” if there is not enough space it is determined whether the information is of relevance to the node),
wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more, K is a natural number of 2 or more and N or less, and M is a predetermined vehicle state information size and is a natural number of N or less (see at least Fig. 6, there can be 3 or more base stations, and [Page 7, paragraph 2-4]; “The space of information and the timing of distribution are controlled by the received node as the carrier”).
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]).
Yun in view of Wang does not disclose manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M.
Condeixa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M (see at least [0174]; “In a network as described herein, data storage/retention and dissemination rules may comprise various parameters which may be dynamically configured/adapted. Changing one or more such parameter values is referred to herein as changing the data storage/retention and dissemination rule or switching between different data storage and dissemination rules. As previously noted, a network in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure may have multiple sets of data storage/retention and dissemination rules for communication of data traffic in “upstream” and “downstream” directions. Some examples of such parameters include…a maximum number of hops (i.e., communication paths or links) onto which to replicate a particular bundle”).
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 maximum hops of Condeixa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a network that is “scalable, reliable, and that provides high-performance support for the gathering, transportation, dissemination, and sharing of information among different network elements, while ensuring selection of suitable trade-offs between the various requirements of all the software applications and services that make use of such data” (see at least Condeixa; [0173]).
Regarding claim 2 Yun in view of Wang and Condeixa 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 and Condeixa 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 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;
when completing driving negotiations of a driving negotiation request vehicle, transmit, to an adjacent driving negotiation apparatus installed on a following road of the driving negotiation apparatus based on a driving direction (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 may be disposed at regular intervals along a road. For example, 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” it would be obvious that this would include an RSU communicating with another RSU either in front of or behind the current RSU, since they are installed at regular intervals along the road), a first packet including state information of a plurality of first vehicles within coverage of 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),
when receiving a packet from an adjacent driving negotiation apparatus installed on a leading road of the driving negotiation apparatus based on the driving direction, analyze the received packet and broadcast failure vehicle information to at least one vehicle within the 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), and
transmit, to the adjacent driving negotiation apparatus installed on the following road, a packet including state information of 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),
wherein, when the driving negotiation apparatus is a Kth driving negotiation apparatus among first to Nth driving negotiation apparatuses sequentially installed based on the driving direction (see at least [0064]; “the driving negotiation apparatus 100 may be disposed at regular intervals along a road).
Yun does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to:
manage state information of the first vehicles to state information of K-1th vehicle when K-1 is less than M, and
manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M,
wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more, K is a natural number of 2 or more and N or less, and M is a predetermined vehicle state information size and is a natural number of N or less.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
manage state information of the first vehicles to state information of K-1th vehicle when K-1 is less than M (see at least [Page 7, paragraph 2-4]; “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 space of information and the timing of distribution are controlled by the received node as the carrier. After receiving the information, the receiving node determines the relevance of the information to the neighbor nodes and decides whether to distribute this information,” the receiving node manages both its information and the information from its neighbor as long as there is enough space), and
…wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more, K is a natural number of 2 or more and N or less, and M is a predetermined vehicle state information size and is a natural number of N or less (see at least Fig. 6, there can be 3 or more base stations, and [Page 7, paragraph 2-4]; “The space of information and the timing of distribution are controlled by the received node as the carrier”).
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]).
Yun in view of Wang does not disclose manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M.
Condeixa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches manage state information of the first vehicles to Mth vehicle state information when K-1 is equal to or greater than M (see at least [0174]; “In a network as described herein, data storage/retention and dissemination rules may comprise various parameters which may be dynamically configured/adapted. Changing one or more such parameter values is referred to herein as changing the data storage/retention and dissemination rule or switching between different data storage and dissemination rules. As previously noted, a network in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure may have multiple sets of data storage/retention and dissemination rules for communication of data traffic in “upstream” and “downstream” directions. Some examples of such parameters include…a maximum number of hops (i.e., communication paths or links) onto which to replicate a particular bundle”).
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 maximum hops of Condeixa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a network that is “scalable, reliable, and that provides high-performance support for the gathering, transportation, dissemination, and sharing of information among different network elements, while ensuring selection of suitable trade-offs between the various requirements of all the software applications and services that make use of such data” (see at least Condeixa; [0173]).
Regarding claim 8 Yun in view of Wang and Condeixa renders obvious 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 in view of Wang and Condeixa renders obvious 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Wang and Condeixa, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of US-20250097878 (hereinafter, “Tandalam”).
Regarding claim 3 Yun in view of Wang and Condeixa 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 and Condeixa 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Wang and Condeixa, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of US-20250097878 (hereinafter, “Tandalam”).
Regarding claim 10 Yun in view of Wang and Condeixa renders obvious 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 as modified by Wang and Condeixa 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220388505 teaches an embodiment for improving safety in a intelligent transportation system using multi-hop communication.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
9/18/26
Prosecution Insights