Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 04/09/2025
3. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim interpretations
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “...a memory is configured to store...” or “...the processor is configured to...”.
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
6. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
7. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “...a data configuration module, configured to collect data.....” (see pending ”device” claim 10 line 3).
and “...the data collection module is configured to acquire status information......” (see pending claim 10 lines 7, 12); and “...a data analysis module, configured to set up a set of sensing ......” (see pending claim 10 line 15).
10. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
12. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 1, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being taught by Jianghong Dong et al “Mixed Cloud Control Testbed: Validating Vehicle-Road-Cloud Integration via Mixed Digital Twin”
A. Per independent claims 1, and 10: Jianghong Dong et al teach hybrid traffic flow testing method, an and implemented system based on digital twin and virtual-physical integration, comprising:
collecting data of a realistic testing site and creating a virtual scene based on the digital twin (see Jianghong Dong et al, the abstract on page 2723), and setting up interactions between a realistic environment and a virtual environment to achieve a system configuration of a system based on the virtual-physical integration (.e., collecting data are exchanged by representing 2-way arrows, see Jianghong Dong et al, Fig.7);
generating virtual human- driven vehicles with different styles based on a data set of the system configuration, and generating realistic human-driven vehicles with different kinds of behaviors /styles (see Jianghong Dong et al, page 2723 col. II 3rd paragraph), based on data collected by driving simulators (see Jianghong Dong et al, page 2732 Fig. 10(b)) operated by realistic human drivers; forming human- driven vehicles with different driving styles (see Jianghong Dong et al, page 2723 col. II 3rd paragraph),by combining a portion of the virtual human- driven vehicles and a portion of the realistic human- driven vehicles; and acquiring status information and location information of the human driven vehicles with different driving kinds of behaviors/styles (see Jianghong Dong et al, Figs 2(b),.7); and setting up, based on the status information and the location information of the human- driven vehicles with different driving styles, a set of sensing, positioning, planning, control, and vehicle to everything (i.e. V2X) communication methods for connected an automated vehicles (CAVs on page 2723 col. II, 2nd paragraph), and performing autonomous driving of the CAVs in the system based on sensing, positioning, planning, control, and V2X communication (i.e., “Driving Simulator” see Jianghong Dong et al, Figs 3(b)), and pg. 2734, 4th paragraph).
B. Per dependent claim 8: Jianghong Dong et al also teach a hybrid traffic flow testing method based on the digital twin and the virtual- physical integration, wherein the V2X communication method comprises:
transmitting a current status of each human- driven vehicle in real time, wherein the CAVs around cach human-driven vehicle are communicate with each human-driven vehicle in real-time based on a V2X communication module (i.e., 2-way exchanging communications are represented by arrows among vehicles of a platoon,(,see Jianghong Dong et al, Figs 2(b),.7, 11(b)); and making by a decision planning module, based on the current status of each human driven vehicle, decisions at a current time, and carrying out collaborative driving between the human driven vehicles of the platoon (see Jianghong Dong et al, Fig. 11(b)) .
C. Per dependent claim 9: Jianghong Dong et al also teach a step of achieving the autonomous driving in real time through sensing, positioning, planning, control, and V2X communication modules, wherein the virtual environment interacts with the realistic environment in real time (see Jianghong Dong et al, page 2723 the abstract, and page 2724 col. I 3rd , and 5th para.),
Conclusion
14. Claims 1-2, 8-10 are rejected; claims 2-7 are objected because they are dependent on a rejected based claim 1.
15. The attached prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights