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 claim(s) 1-3 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OYABU US Patent Pub. No.: 2009/0154424 A1, hereinafter, ‘OYABU’ in view of Nakata US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/0221349.
Consider Claims 1-3, Oyabu teaches a control circuit for controlling an application server that delivers dynamic map information to a first mobile transceiver that receives the dynamic map information (hereinafter ‘data’- Please see Examiner note above), the dynamic map information being information of a dynamic map that is used for execution of fully automated driving under a specific condition, the control circuit causing the application server to execute when the first mobile transceiver executes a handover from a first base station capable of transmitting the dynamic map information in a first area to a second base station capable of transmitting the dynamic map information in a second area, in a case where the first mobile transceiver is in fallback operation in which simultaneous communication with the first base station and the second base station is unavailable, delivering the dynamic map information to the first mobile transceiver via the first base station and a mobile transceiver capable of receiving the dynamic map information from the first base station (i.e., communicating data with one of multiple access point connection which meets the criteria of fallback mode. – see communication timing/scheduling in figures 7-8).
However, Oyabu does not specify delivering the dynamic map information to a second mobile transceiver, capable of receiving the dynamic map information from the first base station, from the second mobile transceiver to the first mobile transceiver.
In analogous art, Nakata teaches a second mobile transceiver, capable of receiving the dynamic map information from the first base station, from the second mobile transceiver to the first mobile transceiver (e.g., this is met based on the teaching of at least 0210-0216 – inter-vehicle communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Obayu to include the suggestions of Nakata for allocation of resources to yield in a case where the first mobile transceiver is in fallback operation in which simultaneous communication with the first base station and the second base station is unavailable, delivering the dynamic map information to the first mobile transceiver via the first base station and a mobile transceiver capable of receiving the dynamic map information from the first base station for the purpose of resource allocation and management.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646