DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
As to claims 1, 11, and 17, the phrase “a second autonomous vehicle” lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no first autonomous vehicle in the claims. There is only a “first vehicle”. The examiner suggests amending the claims to be directed to either “a first autonomous vehicle” or a “second vehicle” as appropriate.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (hereafter referred to as “Becker”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0188384 A1, in view of Goldman et al. (hereafter referred to as “Goldman), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0027354 A1.
As to claim 1, Becker discloses an apparatus (Abstract, ln. 1-3), comprising:
a memory resource located on a first vehicle (Fig. 3, element “Memory 312”; ¶ [0031], ln. 1-5; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5, “memory 312”), wherein the memory resource is configured to store vehicle data (Fig. 3, elements “Work unit 318” and “Result 320”; ¶ [0034], wherein the work unit and result are stored in the vehicle’s memory, and wherein data stored at a vehicle is “vehicle data” as claimed); and
a processing resource coupled to the memory resource (Fig. 3, elements “Main processor 304”, “302”, and “Dedicated processor 314”; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5; ¶ [0034], ln. 1-9), wherein the processing resource is configured to:
determine the first vehicle is idle (¶ [0024], “an especially cost effective mechanism for businesses with idle fleets of cars or other vehicles”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”);
determine availability of the processing resource (¶ [0024], “an especially cost effective mechanism for businesses with idle fleets of cars or other vehicles”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”);
transmit a signal that indicates the availability of the processing resource (Fig. 6, element “Processor resources available? 604”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604)”; ¶ [0046], “If processor resources are available, a determination is then made as to whether there is sufficient power to complete the work (step 606)”; wherein a signal is transmitted at least internally that indicates whether the processor resources are available or not); and
receive a request to perform a processing operation (Fig. 5, element “Receive process request 500”; ¶ [0042]).
Becker is silent on wherein the signal is transmitted to a second autonomous vehicle.
However, Goldman discloses wherein the signal is transmitted to a second autonomous vehicle (¶ [0020]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker in the aforementioned manner as taught by Goldman in order to have autonomous vehicles be given tasks that help the vehicles productively utilize their computational resources while they are in an idle state, thereby reducing computational waste (Goldman: ¶ [0020]).
As to claim 3, Becker discloses determining the first vehicle is idle in response to the first vehicle being parked (¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”).
As to claim 4, Becker discloses a plurality of vehicle sensors (Fig. 3, elements “Dedicated processor 314” and “Systems monitoring and control 316”; ¶ [0032], ln. 15-19, wherein the systems monitoring and control element is a vehicle sensor in that it monitors or senses metrics such as engine performance; ¶ [0034], ln. 1-4, wherein the dedicated processor is a vehicle sensor in that it monitors or senses metrics such as when processing resources are available from the main processor).
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as those given for claim 4 above.
As to claim 6, Becker discloses a transceiver coupled to the memory resource (Fig. 3, elements “Wireless transceiver 306”, “302”, and “Memory 312”; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5).
As to claim 17, Becker discloses a method (Abstract, ln. 1-3), comprising:
determining a first vehicle is idle in response to the first vehicle being turned off or parked (¶ [0024], “an especially cost effective mechanism for businesses with idle fleets of cars or other vehicles”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”);
determining availability of a processing resource of the first vehicle (¶ [0024], “an especially cost effective mechanism for businesses with idle fleets of cars or other vehicles”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”);
transmitting a signal that indicates the availability of the processing resource (Fig. 6, element “Processor resources available? 604”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604)”; ¶ [0046], “If processor resources are available, a determination is then made as to whether there is sufficient power to complete the work (step 606)”; wherein a signal is transmitted at least internally that indicates whether the processor resources are available or not) via a transceiver (Fig. 3, element “Wireless transceiver 306”; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5; ¶ [0034], ln. 10-11); and
receiving a request to perform a processing operation (Fig. 5, element “Receive process request 500”; ¶ [0042]).
Becker is silent on wherein the signal is transmitted to a second autonomous vehicle.
However, Goldman discloses wherein the signal is transmitted to a second autonomous vehicle (¶ [0020]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker in the aforementioned manner as taught by Goldman in order to have autonomous vehicles be given tasks that help the vehicles productively utilize their computational resources while they are in an idle state, thereby reducing computational waste (Goldman: ¶ [0020]).
As to claim 19, Becker discloses performing the processing operation (Fig. 5, elements “Divide process request into work units 502”, “Distribute work units to vehicle data processing systems 504”, and “Receive results 506”; ¶ [0042], ¶ [0043], ln. 1-8).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker and Goldman as applied above, and further in view of TILLMAN et al. (hereafter referred to as “Tillman”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0108010 A1.
As to claim 2, Becker and Goldman are silent on determining the first vehicle is idle in response to the first vehicle being turned off.
However, Tillman discloses determining the first vehicle is idle in response to the first vehicle being turned off (¶ [0006], ln. 9-12).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker and Goldman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Tillman in order to ensure a vehicle is not in use before proceeding with operations not directly related to operating the vehicle (which could decrease the safety of vehicle operation).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker and Goldman as applied above, and further in view of Bertonis et al. (hereafter referred to as “Bertonis”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0030025 A1.
As to claim 7, Becker and Goldman are silent on wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit compressed digital video signals.
However, Bertonis discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit compressed digital video signals (¶ [0011], ln. 1-7).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker and Goldman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Bertonis in order to transmit digital video signals and save network resources through compression.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker and Goldman as applied above, and further in view of Liu et al. (hereafter referred to as “Liu”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0281447 A1.
As to claim 8, Becker and Goldman are silent on wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit compressed audio signals.
However, Liu discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit compressed audio signals (¶ [0022]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker and Goldman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Liu in order to transmit audio signals and save network resources through compression.
Claims 9-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker and Goldman as applied above, and further in view of Witkowski et al. (hereafter referred to as “Witkowski”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0352286 A1.
As to claim 9, Becker and Goldman are silent on wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with a cloud.
However, Witkowski discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with a cloud (Title, “VEHICLE TRAINABLE TRANSCEIVER FOR ALLOWING CLOUD-BASED TRANSFER OF DATA BETWEEN VEHICLES”; ¶¶ [0001], [0026], and [0027]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker and Goldman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Witkowski in order to gain the benefits of cloud computing, such as scalability and flexibility.
As to claim 10, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 9 above.
As to claim 11, Becker discloses an apparatus (Abstract, ln. 1-3), comprising:
a plurality of vehicle sensors configured to collect vehicle data (Fig. 3, elements “Dedicated processor 314” and “Systems monitoring and control 316”; ¶ [0032], ln. 15-19, wherein the systems monitoring and control element is a vehicle sensor in that it monitors or senses metrics such as engine performance; ¶ [0034], ln. 1-4, wherein the dedicated processor is a vehicle sensor in that it monitors or senses metrics such as when processing resources are available from the main processor);
a memory resource located on a first vehicle (Fig. 3, element “Memory 312”; ¶ [0031], ln. 1-5; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5, “memory 312”), wherein the memory resource is configured to store the vehicle data (Fig. 3, elements “Work unit 318” and “Result 320”; ¶ [0034], wherein the work unit and result are stored in the vehicle’s memory, and wherein data stored at a vehicle is “vehicle data” as claimed);
a transceiver coupled to the memory resource (Fig. 3, elements “Wireless transceiver 306”, “302”, and “Memory 312”; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5); and
a processing resource coupled to the memory resource (Fig. 3, elements “Main processor 304”, “302”, and “Dedicated processor 314”; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5; ¶ [0034], ln. 1-9), wherein the processing resource is configured to:
determine the first vehicle is idle in response to the vehicle being turned off or parked (¶ [0024], “an especially cost effective mechanism for businesses with idle fleets of cars or other vehicles”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”);
determine availability of the processing resource (¶ [0024], “an especially cost effective mechanism for businesses with idle fleets of cars or other vehicles”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604). In these examples, processor resources are available when the vehicle is parked and not in use”);
transmit a signal that indicates the availability of the processing resource (Fig. 6, element “Processor resources available? 604”; ¶ [0045], “a determination is made as to whether processor resources are available (step 604)”; ¶ [0046], “If processor resources are available, a determination is then made as to whether there is sufficient power to complete the work (step 606)”; wherein a signal is transmitted at least internally that indicates whether the processor resources are available or not) via the transceiver (Fig. 3, element “Wireless transceiver 306”; ¶ [0032], ln. 1-5; ¶ [0034], ln. 10-11); and
receive a request to perform a processing operation (Fig. 5, element “Receive process request 500”; ¶ [0042]).
Becker is silent on wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with a cloud; and
wherein the processing resource is configured to:
transmit the vehicle data to the cloud via the transceiver; and
wherein the signal is transmitted to a second autonomous vehicle.
However, Goldman discloses wherein the signal is transmitted to a second autonomous vehicle (¶ [0020]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker in the aforementioned manner as taught by Goldman in order to have autonomous vehicles be given tasks that help the vehicles productively utilize their computational resources while they are in an idle state, thereby reducing computational waste (Goldman: ¶ [0020]).
Becker and Goldman are silent on wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with a cloud; and
wherein the processing resource is configured to:
transmit the vehicle data to the cloud via the transceiver.
However, Witkowski discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with a cloud (Title, “VEHICLE TRAINABLE TRANSCEIVER FOR ALLOWING CLOUD-BASED TRANSFER OF DATA BETWEEN VEHICLES”; ¶¶ [0001], [0026], and [0027]); and
wherein the processing resource is configured to:
transmit the vehicle data to the cloud via the transceiver (Title, “VEHICLE TRAINABLE TRANSCEIVER FOR ALLOWING CLOUD-BASED TRANSFER OF DATA BETWEEN VEHICLES”; ¶¶ [0001], [0026], and [0027]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker and Goldman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Witkowski in order to gain the benefits of cloud computing, such as scalability and flexibility.
As to claims 12-14, the claims are rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 19 above.
As to claim 18, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 9 above.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Goldman, and Witkowski as applied above, and further in view of Tirone et al. (hereafter referred to as “Tirone”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0170287 A1.
As to claim 15, Becker, Goldman, and Witkowski are silent on wherein the vehicle data is for an autonomous driving application.
However, Tirone discloses wherein the vehicle data is for an autonomous driving application (Abstract; ¶ [0079]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker, Goldman, and Witkowski in the aforementioned manner as taught by Tirone in order to apply the benefits of Becker and Witkowski’s inventions to an autonomous driving application and in order to gain the benefits of autonomous driving.
As to claim 16, Becker, Goldman, and Witkowski are silent on wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors include a vehicle camera.
However, Tirone discloses wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors include a vehicle camera (¶ [0026]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker, Goldman, and Witkowski in the aforementioned manner as taught by Tirone in order to apply the benefits of Becker and Witkowski’s inventions to an autonomous driving application and in order to gain the benefits of autonomous driving, whereby utilization of a camera is critical for autonomous driving.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker and Goldman as applied above, in view of Asaoka et al. (hereafter referred to as “Asaoka”), U.S. Patent No. 5,878,340.
As to claim 20, Becker and Goldman are silent on receiving the request from a base station or a vehicle different from the first vehicle.
However, Asaoka discloses receiving the request from a base station or a vehicle different from the first vehicle (Abstract).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Becker and Goldman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Asaoka in order to utilize the invention of Becker with a base station, which is a common means of communicating in cellular mobile telephone systems.
Conclusion
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 Brian Whipple whose telephone number is (571)270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
8/27/26
Prosecution Insights