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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12159534. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 19 and 20 inventive scope of the instant application are broader than claims 1, 17 and 18 of the patent, therefore the instant application’s respective claim inventive scope is encompassed within the patent’s respective claim inventive scope. Regarding claim 2, see patent claim 2. Regarding claim 3, see patent claim 3. Regarding claim 4, see patent claim 4, with regard to the analysis of anticipation of network demand of a portion of the fleet vehicle being interpreted as at least the portion of the fleet of vehicle have the same network-enabled software to enable the anticipation of the network demand determination. Regarding claim 5, see patent claim 3. Regarding claim 6, see patent claim 4. Regarding claim 7, see patent claim 5. Regarding claim 8, see patent claim 6. Regarding claim 9, see patent claim 7. Regarding claim 10, see patent claim 8. Regarding claim 11, see patent claim 9. Regarding claim 12, see patent claim 10. Regarding claim 13, see patent claim 11. Regarding claim 14, see patent claim 12. Regarding claim 15, see patent claim 13. Regarding claim 16, see patent claim 14. Regarding claim 17, see patent claim 15 Regarding claim 18, see patent claim 16.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 14 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares Coutinho et al. (“Tavares”, US 20180376357 A1) in view of Liu et al. (“Liu”, US 20200162901 A1). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 20, Tavares discloses an apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising: a processing system including at least one processor (Fig. 5: connections managers block module in combination with the service manager block module. Notice that Tavares discloses, in ¶0016, the modules are performed by processors); and a computer-readable medium (¶0016; ¶0257) storing instructions (¶0016-17; ¶0257) which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations (¶0016; ¶0257; Figs.11A-C): identifying a network zone (¶0161-164; ¶0240-244 with reference to Figs. 5-6 and 11A: step 1102) with excess capacity (¶0063; ¶0077; ¶0091-92; ¶0142-143), the network zone comprising a plurality of network components of a telecommunication network (¶0029; ¶0034; ¶0134; ¶0145; ¶0196; ¶0239-241; Figs. 1; 5-7A). As per the limitation transmitting an invitation to a set of entities to utilize the network zone to obtain at least one network service at a geographic location of the network zone. Tavares illustrates, in Figs. 5-6, the concept of enabling multiple network components (e.g., vehicles, network infrastructure etc.) to be interconnect to enable provision of services provided by a cloud infrastructure. Tavares further discloses providing services for fleet vehicles, ¶¶28-29. Liu discloses, in ¶0014; ¶0035; ¶0056 with reference to Figs. 1 and 4, the concept of transmitting a multicast invitation to a group of vehicle (according to a set of entities) to establish a networked interconnected experience for the group of vehicles and providing distributed network capacity controls. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of transmitting a multicast invitation to a group of vehicle (according to a set of entities) to establish a networked interconnected experience for the group of vehicles and providing distributed network capacity controls, with the motivation to enhance network communication features of the system. As per the limitation configuring at least one network component of the plurality of network components in accordance with an anticipated network demand from the set of entities (Tavares: ¶0073; ¶0110; ¶0114; ¶0152-153; ¶0162; ¶0186; Figs. 5-6 and 11A); and providing the at least one network service to at least one entity of the set of entities via the network zone when the at least one entity is present at the geographic location of the network zone (Liu: Fig. 4 with regard to the interconnected vehicle being provided interconnection services while being in the established vehicular network illustrated by the enclosed dashed region/zone). 2) Regarding claim 2, wherein the set of entities comprises at least a portion of a fleet of vehicles (Tavares: ¶0028-29). 3) Regarding claim 4, wherein the fleet of vehicles comprises vehicles executing the same network-enabled software (Tavares: ¶0029). 4) Regarding claim 14, wherein the at least one network component comprises at least one wireless access point (Tavares: ¶0008; ¶¶0022-23; ¶0161), wherein the at least one wireless access point is deployed at a mass sporting event venue or a mass entertainment event venue (Tavares: ¶0050). 5) Regarding claim 19, Tavares and Liu with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 20, teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Tavares: ¶0016; ¶0257) storing instructions (Tavares: ¶0016; ¶0257) which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor (Tavares: ¶0016), cause the processing system to perform operations (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20), the operations comprising: identifying a network zone with excess capacity, the network zone comprising a plurality of network components of a telecommunication network (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20); transmitting an invitation to a set of entities to utilize the network zone to obtain at least one network service at a geographic location of the network zone (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20); configuring at least one network component of the plurality of network components in accordance with an anticipated network demand from the set of entities (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20); and providing the at least one network service to at least one entity of the set of entities via the network zone when the at least one entity is present at the geographic location of the network zone (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 20).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares in view of Liu, and in further view of Barsacq et al. (“Barsacq”, EP 4105065 A1). 1) Regarding claim 3, wherein the fleet of vehicles comprises vehicles of at least one of: a particular manufacturer or a particular vehicle. Barsacq discloses, on page 18: ¶¶004-5, the concept of using the same model for a transport fleet or using various models. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using the same model for a transport fleet, with the motivation to enhance the option selection of vehicle type for the fleet.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares in view of Liu, and in further view of Rahematpura et al. (“Rahematpura”, US 20220163336 A1). 1) Regarding claim 5, wherein the fleet of vehicles comprises vehicles that are managed by a same organization. Rahematpura discloses, in ¶0030 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of providing a vehicle’s managed by a fleet operators (corresponding to vehicle managed by the same organization) the ability to provide the managed vehicle interconnected services. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a vehicle’s managed by a fleet operators the ability to provide the managed vehicle interconnected services, with the motivation to enhance to enhance network communication features of the system.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares in view of Liu, and in further view of Zhou et al. (“Zhou”, US 20180308038 A1). 1) Regarding claim 6, further comprising: identifying at least a portion of the anticipated network demand from the at least the portion of the fleet of vehicles. Tavares discloses, in ¶0152, that the types of communication connections needed to provide a service is determined based on the demand regarding the communication connection with respect to the type of services being provided. Furthermore, Zhou discloses, in abstract; ¶¶0013-17; ¶0023, the concept of determining anticipated network demands for network services. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining anticipated network demands for network services, with the motivation to enhance with the motivation to enhance the network servicing features of the system.
Claim(s) 7 & 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares in view of Liu and Zhou, and in further view of Schnieders et al. (“Schnieders”, EP 3913939 A1). 1) Regarding claim 7, further comprising: for at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles: identifying a vehicular traffic condition associated with at least one roadway of the network zone; determining a first duration of time for fulfilling the anticipated network demand from the at least one entity in accordance with the excess capacity; and calculating a second duration of time for the at least one vehicle to be within a communication range of the at least one network component of the plurality of network components of the network zone. Schnieders discloses, in ¶¶0038-52 with reference to Figs. 1-2, the concept of determining respective time delays (interpreted as calculating a duration of time respectively, i.e., 1st, 2nd etc.) related to data uplink and downlink per interconnected vehicle with respect to a located access point (corresponding to a network zone) able to communicate to each interconnected vehicle to facilitate vehicle trajectory adjustment when potential collision condition exist (i.e., two vehicle traveling in the same lane headed toward each other, corresponding to a vehicular traffic condition). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining respective time delays related to data uplink and downlink per interconnected vehicle with respect to a located access point able to communicate to each interconnected vehicle to facilitate vehicle trajectory adjustment when potential collision condition exist, with the motivation to enhance to enhance the safety communication features of the interconnected vehicles. 2) Regarding claim 9, further comprising: identifying a vehicular traffic condition associated with at least one roadway of the network zone; and directing at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles to navigate a route through an area associated with the network zone in accordance with the vehicular traffic condition. Schnieders discloses, in ¶¶0038-52 with reference to Figs. 2-3, the concept of determining respective time delays related to data uplink and downlink per interconnected vehicle with respect to a located access point able to communicate to each interconnected vehicle to facilitate vehicle trajectory adjustment when potential collision condition exist (i.e., two vehicle traveling in close vicinity to each other, corresponding to a vehicular traffic condition) to ensure that one of the vehicle is provided a trajectory route to guide the safely through a road portion (corresponding to navigating a route through an area with the network zone in accordance with the vehicular traffic condition). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining respective time delays related to data uplink and downlink per interconnected vehicle with respect to a located access point able to communicate to each interconnected vehicle to facilitate vehicle trajectory adjustment when potential collision condition exist, with the motivation to enhance to enhance the safety communication features of the interconnected vehicles. 3) Regarding claim 10, wherein the directing comprises: selecting the route with an anticipated traffic delay in accordance with the vehicular traffic condition to meet an anticipated network demand from the at least one vehicle (Schnieders: ¶¶0038-49 with reference to Fig. 2-3, with regard to the data traffic delay between the communicating vehicles during vehicle trajectory related to lane changes) or to maintain a presence of the at least one vehicle within a communication range of the at least one network component of the plurality of network components of the network zone for a target duration of time.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares Coutinho in view of Liu, and in further view of Burke et al. (“Burke”, US 20140302774 A1). 1) Regarding claim 12, Tavares and Liu teach further comprising: obtaining an acceptance of the invitation from the at least one entity (Liu: ¶¶0023-24); transmitting a token to the at least one entity (Liu: ¶0058 with regard to the establishment of session keys for unicasting communications). As per the limitation obtaining the token from the at least one entity via at least one of the plurality of components of the network zone, wherein the providing of the at least one network service to the at least one entity is performed in response to the obtaining of the token. Liu disclosure, in ¶¶0023-24, for establishing a session suggest that the network services are not provided without the session key. Furthermore, Burke discloses, in ¶0028, ¶0109; ¶0118, the concept of establishing an unique key along with a group identifier to be provided to each vehicle accepting a group session to enable sharing of information within the group. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of establishing an unique key along with a group identifier to be provided to each vehicle accepting a group session to enable sharing of information within the group, with the motivation to enhance to enhance the network features of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares Coutinho in view of Liu and Burke, and in further view of Ablay et al. (“Ablay”, US 20030147534 A1). 1) Regarding claim 13, wherein the at least one network service is provided at a service level that is associated with the token from among a plurality of service levels. Ablay discloses, in ¶0039; ¶0054, the concept of establishing a session with regard to a level of service provided by a network device. Notice the Ablay discloses, in ¶0021, authenticating services (corresponding to among a plurality). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of establishing a session with regard to a level of service provided by a network device, with the motivation to enhance with the motivation to enhance the communication security features of the system.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares Coutinho in view of Liu, and in further view of Legg et al. (“Legg”, US 20220052731 A1). 1) Regarding claim 15, as per the limitation wherein the configuring comprises altering a beam pattern of the at least one wireless access point. Legg discloses, in ¶¶0191-198, the concept of adjusting a beam pattern based on required network communication requirements for vehicles. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of adjusting a beam pattern based on required network communication requirements for vehicles, with the motivation to enhance to enhance the network communication features of the system.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares Coutinho in view of Liu, and in further view of Gao et al. (“Gao”, US 20200322233 A1). 1) Regarding claim 16, as per the limitation wherein the set of entities comprises devices of potential participants in a multi-participant extended reality experience. In the art of providing services provided in vehicle environments, Gao discloses, in ¶0009; ¶0014, ¶¶0018-20 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of establishing an access point to enable multiple client devices to participant in an augmented reality experience (corresponding to extended reality experience). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of establishing an access point to enable multiple client devices to participant in an augmented reality experience, with the motivation to enhance to enhance the service provisioning features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8, 11 & 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10159036 B1; US 20210114616 A1; US 20220007379 A1, system providing access point connection for multiple devices in a vehicle environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights