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 Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Office on 12/02/2025, the Office acknowledges the current status of the claims: claims 18 and 20 have been amended, claims 11-17 and 19 remain the same, claims 1-10 have been canceled, and no new matter appears to be included.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument
Applicant argues Mitchell does not disclose or suggest, "selecting a type of network connection based on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle". Wherein, Mitchell selects an autonomous operational mode based on the state of the data communication connections. Thus, in Mitchell the state of the data communications connections drives the autonomous operational mode selection.
Examiner’s Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir.1986). In this case, Mitchell is not cited for teaching “selecting a type of network connection based on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle”. Wherein, Yao is cited for teaching “selecting a type of network connection based on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle” see D. Examiner Response below for a detailed response for Yao’s teachings of this limitation.
Applicant Argument
Applicant argues Yao does not disclose or suggest the selection of a neural network “based on the currently set or requested level or autonomous control for the vehicle” and instead discloses selecting an action based on the predicted subsequent state. Applicant further argues one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no relation between Yao's neural network and Mitchell's data communication connections, and therefore this person would not have considered Yao's disclosure of using a neural network for state prediction to modify how Mitchell selects one of the data communication connections, see remarks page 6.
D. Examiner’s Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yao’s fig. 6 and pars. 0063-0066 teaches the method 600 is initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode. Thus, when the vehicle control system 115 senses and communicates with the neural network 250 in method 600 it is due to the initiation caused by an autonomous mode being currently set. Furthermore, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and pars. 0024-0025 teaches the wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250 and the communication system 100 may use signals received by the satellite receiver 132 from the plurality of satellites in the satellite network 260. Thus, since there are at least two networks the vehicle can communicate with, the vehicle control system 115 selects a type of network connection [the neural network 250] in method 600 based on when the vehicle is in an autonomous mode.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yao is cited for teaching “determining a currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle” (fig. 6 and par. 0063 teaches the autonomous mode may be initiated in response to input from a user or may be initiated automatically without input from the user in response to detection of more or more triggers. Then, method 600 may be initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode, such as an autonomous driving or parking mode. Whereas, “the autonomous mode may be initiated in response to input from a user” reads as a currently set requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art) and “selecting a type of network connection based on the on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle” (fig. 6 and pars. 0063-066, teaches method 600 may be initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 senses a state of the vehicle and an environment of the vehicle 105 to obtain sensor data that is provided to the neural network 250. Moreover, the neural network 250 receives the data. Thus, a network connection based on the currently set level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Furthermore, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and par. 0024, teaches the vehicle control system 115 to exchange data and optionally voice communications with a wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250. Moreover, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and pars. 0024-0025, teaches the communication system 100 may use signals received by the satellite receiver 132 from the plurality of satellites in the satellite network 260. Therefore, when the method 600 is initiated by the vehicle control system 115 via autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 selects the a wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250). Thus, Yao is cited for acts of determination and selection and is not cited for a neural network or data communication connections. Thus, Yao’s acts of determination and selection may be used in combination with Mitchell’s teachings of network connections. The motivations for doing so would be to improve autonomous driving. (see Yao par. 0002)
Applicant Argument
Applicant argues Davies does not disclose or suggest, "selecting a type of network connection based on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle".
Examiner’s Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir.1986). In this case, Davies is not cited for teaching “selecting a type of network connection based on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle”. Wherein, Yao is cited for teaching “selecting a type of network connection based on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle” see D. Examiner Response above for a detailed response for Yao’s teachings of this limitation.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection below.
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.
Claims 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US20190049954 hereinafter Mitchell) in view of Yao et al. (US20190102668 hereinafter Yao), in further view of Davies et al. (US20190150080 hereinafter Davies).
Regarding claim 11. Mitchell teaches the method for automatically establishing or automatically switching vehicle communication for data exchange between a vehicle and a remote station, the method comprising: determining a … level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055, teaches the vehicle safety management component 180 selects one of a plurality of operational modes for the autonomous vehicle, wherein each of the plurality of operational modes defines a respective level of autonomous control for the autonomous vehicle)
the … network connection is used to transmit data between the vehicle and the remote station (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055, teaches the autonomous vehicle communicates with a remote server with a path that spans both the satellite network and the Ethernet network)
via at least one of the following types of network connection a network connection in a terrestrial network (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055, teaches the autonomous vehicle communicates with a remote server with a path that spans both the satellite network and the Ethernet network. Whereas, the language “the autonomous vehicle communicates with the Ethernet network” reads as a network connection in a terrestrial network within the additional context of fig. 4 and pars. 0046-0047, which teaches the autonomous vehicle communications with a WiFi network 415, a cellular network 420, a satellite network and a local area autonomous driving network 430), a network connection in a non-terrestrial network (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055, teaches the autonomous vehicle communicates with a remote server with a path that spans both the satellite network and the Ethernet network. Whereas, the language “the autonomous vehicle communicates with the satellite network” reads as a network connection in a non-terrestrial network), and parallel network connections in the terrestrial and the non-terrestrial network (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055, teaches the autonomous vehicle communicates with a remote server with a path that spans both the satellite network and the Ethernet network. Whereas, the language “communicating with a path that spans both” reads as parallel network connections in the terrestrial and the non-terrestrial network. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (at least one of), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “at least one of” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
However, although Mitchell teaches determining a … level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055), the apparatus and methods of Mitchell explicitly fails to disclose, determining a currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle; and selecting a type of network connection based on the on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle.
Yao disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for level of autonomous control for the vehicle, so Yao is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Yao teaches determining a currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and par. 0063 teaches the autonomous mode may be initiated in response to input from a user or may be initiated automatically without input from the user in response to detection of more or more triggers. Then, method 600 may be initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode, such as an autonomous driving or parking mode. Whereas, “the autonomous mode may be initiated in response to input from a user” reads as a currently set requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art); and
selecting a type of network connection based on the on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0063-066, teaches method 600 may be initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 senses a state of the vehicle and an environment of the vehicle 105 to obtain sensor data that is provided to the neural network 250. Moreover, the neural network 250 receives the data. Thus, a network connection based on the currently set level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Furthermore, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and par. 0024, teaches the vehicle control system 115 to exchange data and optionally voice communications with a wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250. Moreover, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and pars. 0024-0025, teaches the communication system 100 may use signals received by the satellite receiver 132 from the plurality of satellites in the satellite network 260. Therefore, when the method 600 is initiated by the vehicle control system 115 via autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 selects the a wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize determining a currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle; and selecting a type of network connection based on the on the currently set or requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle, as disclosed by Yao with the method of Mitchell. The motivations for doing so would be to improve autonomous driving. (see Yao par. 0002)
However, although Mitchell teaches the … network connection is used to transmit data between the vehicle and the remote station (figs. 6 & 4 and pars. 0046-0047 & 0054-0055), the combination of Mitchell and Yao explicitly fails to disclose, selecting a type of network connection… of autonomous control for the vehicle, wherein the selected network connection is used to transmit data between the vehicle and the … station via at least one of the following types of network connection a network connection in a terrestrial network, a network connection in a non-terrestrial network, and parallel network connections in the terrestrial and the non-terrestrial network.
Davies disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for selecting a type of network connection, so Davies is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Davies teaches selecting a type of network connection… of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 4 and pars. 0063-0065, teaches selecting the first network (e.g., the terrestrial mobile network) or the second network (e.g., the satellite network). Furthermore, par 0060, teaches the application may correspond to autonomous control of a vehicle, proximity analysis of a vehicle, and/or the like), wherein
the selected network connection is used to transmit data between the vehicle and the … station (fig. 4 and pars. 0063-0065, teaches user device transmitting traffic with the selected network. Furthermore, user device 210 may send a notification to gateway of selected network to indicate that traffic communication is to be exchanged through selected network)
via at least one of the following types of network connection a network connection in a terrestrial network (fig. 4 and pars. 0063-0065, teaches the user device selects a terrestrial mobile network for traffic communication, and user device may use a terrestrial mobile network radio to communicate traffic), a network connection in a non-terrestrial network (fig. 4 and pars. 0063-0065, teaches the user device selects a satellite network, and the user device may communicate traffic via a satellite network radio), and parallel network connections in the terrestrial and the non-terrestrial network (fig. 4 and pars. 0063-0067, teaches two or more of the blocks of process 400 may be performed in parallel. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (at least one of), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “at least one of” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize selecting a type of network connection… of autonomous control for the vehicle, wherein the selected network connection is used to transmit data between the vehicle and the … station via at least one of the following types of network connection a network connection in a terrestrial network, a network connection in a non-terrestrial network, and parallel network connections in the terrestrial and the non-terrestrial network, as disclosed by Davies with the combination of Mitchell and Yao. The motivations for doing so would be to prevent loss of data. (see Davies par. 0013)
Regarding claim 16. Mitchell, Yao, and Davies teaches the method for claim 11. Mitchell further teaches data transmission in the non-terrestrial network is performed via satellites (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055, teaches the autonomous vehicle communicates with a remote server with a path that spans both the satellite network and the Ethernet network).
Regarding claim 17. Mitchell, Yao, and Davies teaches the method for claim 16.
However, although Mitchell teaches the network connection is used to transmit (figs. 6 & 4 and pars. 0046-0047 & 0054-0055), the combination of Mitchell and Yao explicitly fails to disclose, individual satellites or satellite groups on various earth orbits are selectable for data transmission and the selection of the satellites or satellite groups is performed based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle.
Davies further teaches individual satellites or satellite groups on various earth orbits are selectable for data transmission (fig. 2 and par. 0037, teaches the user device 210 may communicate via more than two networks 220 (e.g., two or more terrestrial mobile networks and/or one or more satellite mobile networks). Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art) and the selection of the satellites or satellite groups (par. 0060, teaches the user device 210 selects the terrestrial mobile network or the satellite mobile network for traffic communication in order to ensure the ability to continuously communicate)
is performed based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle (par. 0060, teaches user device 210 may be running an application that is to maintain a minimal latency in communication between user device 210 and gateways 230 running on the terrestrial mobile network and the satellite network, wherein the application may correspond to autonomous control of a vehicle, proximity analysis of a vehicle, and/or the like. Wherein, fig. 4 and par. 0056 teaches the user device 210 selects the satellite mobile network for traffic communication based on a characteristic of a communication link with the terrestrial mobile network and a characteristic of a communication link with the satellite network. Whereas, the “user device 210 may be running an application that is to maintain a minimal latency and the user device 210 selects the satellite mobile network for traffic communication based on a characteristic of a communication link” reads as the software application the selection of the satellites is performed based on the set software application activated in the vehicle. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize individual satellites or satellite groups on various earth orbits are selectable for data transmission and the selection of the satellites or satellite groups is performed based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle, as disclosed by Davies with the combination of Mitchell and Yao. The motivations for doing so would be to prevent loss of data. (see Davies par. 0013)
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US20190049954 hereinafter Mitchell) in view of Yao et al. (US20190102668 hereinafter Yao), in view of Davies et al. (US20190150080 hereinafter Davies), in further view of Lee et al. (US20200045687 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12. Mitchell, Yao, and Davies teaches the method for claim 11.
However, although Mitchell teaches determining a … level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055), the apparatus and methods of Mitchell explicitly fails to disclose, the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications activated or requested in the vehicle.
Yao further teaches the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications activated or requested in the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0063-066, teaches method 600 may be initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 senses a state of the vehicle and an environment of the vehicle 105 to obtain sensor data that is provided to the neural network 250. Moreover, the neural network 250 receives the data. Thus, a network connection based on the currently set level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Furthermore, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and par. 0024, teaches the vehicle control system 115 to exchange data and optionally voice communications with a wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250. Moreover, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and pars. 0024-0025, teaches the communication system 100 may use signals received by the satellite receiver 132 from the plurality of satellites in the satellite network 260. Therefore, when the method 600 is initiated by the vehicle control system 115 via autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 selects the wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250. Whereas, “the autonomous mode may be initiated in response to input from a user” reads as a currently set requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Furthermore, par. 0063, teaches the method 600 may be carried out by software executed, for example, by the processor of the vehicle control system 115, a neural network controller, or a combination thereof. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications activated or requested in the vehicle, as disclosed by Yao with the method of Mitchell. The motivations for doing so would be to improve autonomous driving. (see Yao par. 0002)
However, although Yao teaches the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications activated or requested in the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0063-066), the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies explicitly fails to disclose, the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications … in the vehicle, each of which has one of a plurality of quality of service requirements.
Lee disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for a plurality of quality of service requirements, so Lee is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Lee teaches the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications … in the vehicle, each of which has one of a plurality of quality of service requirements (figs. 8-9 and pars. 0151-0154, teaches since the at least one application installed in the vehicle 801 (an autonomous vehicle) operates based on communication of the vehicle 801, the terminal 800 (terminal 800 may be included in a vehicle 801) may determine whether a communication state of the scheduled driving route of the vehicle 801 meets a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement for each of the at least one application. Then, based on a result of the determination, the terminal 800 may identify a network resource to be allocated to the at least one application. Furthermore, pars. 0156-0159, teaches the at least one application may include an application for providing a conference call service, an application for providing a video streaming service, an application for providing an email transmission and reception service, and Quality of Service (QoS) requirement information for each of the at least one application. Whereas, “the at least one application may include an application for providing a conference call service, an application for providing a video streaming service, an application for providing an email transmission and reception service” reads as software applications. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the type of network connection is further selected based on software applications or hardware applications … in the vehicle, each of which has one of a plurality of quality of service requirements, as disclosed by Lee with the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies. The motivations for doing so would be to improve efficiency. (see Lee par. 0003)
Regarding claim 13. Mitchell, Yao, Davies, and Lee teaches the method for claim 12.
However, although Mitchell teaches packet loss rate (par. 0047), the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies explicitly fails to disclose, the plurality of quality of service requirements differ by latency, jitter, data error rate, packet loss rate, or throughput.
Lee further teaches the plurality of quality of service requirements differ by latency (figs. 8-9 and pars. 0155-0158, teaches QoS requirement information may include information on a bandwidth required upon operation of a corresponding application, information on latency required upon operation of the corresponding application), jitter (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record), data error rate (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record), packet loss rate (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record), or throughput (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the plurality of quality of service requirements differ by latency, as disclosed by Lee with the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies. The motivations for doing so would be to improve efficiency. (see Lee par. 0003)
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US20190049954 hereinafter Mitchell) in view of Yao et al. (US20190102668 hereinafter Yao), in view of Davies et al. (US20190150080 hereinafter Davies), in further view of Pye et al. (US20180300610 hereinafter Pye).
Regarding claim 14. Mitchell, Yao, and Davies teaches the method for claim 11.
However, although Yao teaches selecting a type of network connection (figs. 1A-1B, 3, 6 and pars. 0024 & 0063-066), the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies explicitly fails to disclose, the type of network connection is further selected based on a currently achieved signal propagation time or a predetermined signal propagation time.
Pye disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for propagation time, so Pye is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Pye teaches the type network connection is further selected based on a currently achieved signal propagation time or a predetermined signal propagation time (fig. 4 and pars. 0042-0044, teaches the device 200 measures a propagation time 122 for the inputted data that has propagate through one of the plurality of neural networks 250-1 to 250-n. Then the device 200 selects one of the plurality of neural networks 250-1 to 250-n based on a comparison of the calculated ratio of the propagation time 122 and the search time 224. Whereas, the calculated ratio of the propagation time 122 and the search time 224 is determined prior to the selecting the type of network connection. Furthermore, selecting at block 450 may continuously switch between the plurality of neural networks 250-1 to 250-n based on the comparison which reads on a currently achieved signal propagation time. Moreover, pars. 0021-0023, teaches the neural networks may generally be defined by three types and each of the plurality of neural networks 250-1 to 250-n may be of a different size. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the type network connection is further selected based on a currently achieved signal propagation time or a predetermined signal propagation time, as disclosed by Pye with the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies. The motivations for doing so would be to improve performance. (see Pye par. 0035)
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US20190049954 hereinafter Mitchell) in view of Yao et al. (US20190102668 hereinafter Yao), in view of Davies et al. (US20190150080 hereinafter Davies), in view of Lee et al. (US20200045687 hereinafter Lee), in view of Shrestha et al. (US20220038243 hereinafter Shrestha).
Regarding claim 15. Mitchell, Yao, Davies, and Lee teaches the method for claim 12.
However, although Mitchell teaches determining a … level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055), the apparatus and methods of Mitchell explicitly fails to disclose, one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle.
Yao further teaches one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0063-066, teaches method 600 may be initiated by the vehicle control system 115 when in an autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 senses a state of the vehicle and an environment of the vehicle 105 to obtain sensor data that is provided to the neural network 250. Moreover, the neural network 250 receives the data. Thus, a network connection based on the currently set level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Furthermore, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and par. 0024, teaches the vehicle control system 115 to exchange data and optionally voice communications with a wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250. Moreover, figs. 1A-1B, 3 and pars. 0024-0025, teaches the communication system 100 may use signals received by the satellite receiver 132 from the plurality of satellites in the satellite network 260. Therefore, when the method 600 is initiated by the vehicle control system 115 via autonomous mode, the vehicle control system 115 selects the wireless wide area network (WAN) 210 to access a server 240 and the server 240 is connected to a neural network 250. Whereas, “the autonomous mode may be initiated in response to input from a user” reads as a currently set requested level of autonomous control for the vehicle. Furthermore, par. 0063, teaches the method 600 may be carried out by software executed, for example, by the processor of the vehicle control system 115, a neural network controller, or a combination thereof. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle, as disclosed by Yao with the method of Mitchell. The motivations for doing so would be to improve autonomous driving. (see Yao par. 0002)
However, although Yao teaches one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested in the vehicle (figs. 1A-1B, 3, 6 and pars. 0024-0025, 0063-066), the combination of Mitchell, Yao, Davies, and Lee explicitly fails to disclose, network connections with various signal propagation times or data throughput rates are selectable within the terrestrial network or network connections with various signal propagation times or data throughput rates are selectable within the non-terrestrial network, and one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested.
Shrestha disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for network connections, so Shrestha is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Shrestha teaches network connections with various signal propagation times or data throughput rates are selectable within the terrestrial network (fig. 8 and pars. 0030 and 0070-0071, teaches due to propagation delays associated with non-terrestrial networks (NTNs), HARQ feedback may be disabled (e.g., based on a configuration) to avoid stalling of HARQ processes. In examples, the propagation delay may be based on a UE having to transmit data to a satellite, and the satellite having to further transmit the data to a base station. Moreover, to avoid stalled HARQ processes caused by long propagation delays, some of the HARQ processes may have feedback procedures disabled when the UE transmits subsequent UL data. Whereas, the language “to avoid stalled HARQ processes caused by long propagation delays, some of the HARQ processes may have feedback procedures disabled” reads as various signal propagation times are selectable via the enablement and disablement of the HARQ processes feedback procedures, see figs. 6-7. Furthermore, figs. 6-8 and pars. 0096-0099, teaches the UE may exchange communication with the base station based on the allocation of resources and the determination of whether the resources have one of the associated HARQ processes. Thus, the UE selects the signal propagation times within the terrestrial network. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art)
or network connections with various signal propagation times or data throughput rates are selectable within the non-terrestrial network (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record),
and one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested (fig. 8 and pars. 0030 and 0070-0071, teaches due to propagation delays associated with non-terrestrial networks (NTNs), HARQ feedback may be disabled (e.g., based on a configuration) to avoid stalling of HARQ processes. Thus, selecting the terrestrial network based on the set software application. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize network connections with various signal propagation times or data throughput rates are selectable within the terrestrial network or network connections with various signal propagation times or data throughput rates are selectable within the non-terrestrial network, and one of the network connections is selected based on the set or requested level of autonomy or based on the software application or hardware application activated or requested, as disclosed by Shrestha with the combination of Mitchell, Yao, Davies, and Lee. The motivations for doing so would be to improve techniques for reducing delayed HARQ conditions. (see Shrestha par. 0096)
Regarding claim 19. Mitchell, Yao, Davies, Lee, and Shrestha teaches the method for claim 15.
However, although Mitchell teaches the … network connection is used to transmit data between the vehicle and the remote station (figs. 6 & 4 and pars. 0046-0047 & 0054-0055), the combination of Mitchell and Yao explicitly fails to disclose, the data transmission in the terrestrial network occurs via one or more mobile radio networks with various mobile radio standards.
Davies further teaches the data transmission in the terrestrial network occurs (fig. 4 and pars. 0063-0065, teaches selecting the first network (e.g., the terrestrial mobile network) or the second network (e.g., the satellite network). Furthermore, par 0060, teaches the application may correspond to autonomous control of a vehicle, proximity analysis of a vehicle, and/or the like. Then, the user device transmits traffic with the selected network) via one or more mobile radio networks with various mobile radio standards (fig. 2 and par. 0046, teaches user device 210 may utilize two or more radios (e.g., one or more terrestrial mobile network radios and one or more satellite network radios) to establish the first communication link and the second communication link. Furthermore, pars. 0022-0025, teaches networks 220 may include a terrestrial mobile network (e.g., a cellular network, such as a long-term evolution (LTE) network, a code division multiple access (CDMA) network, a 3G network, a 4G network, a 5G network, another type of next generation network, etc.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the data transmission in the terrestrial network occurs via one or more mobile radio networks with various mobile radio standards, as disclosed by Davies with the combination of Mitchell and Yao. The motivations for doing so would be to prevent loss of data. (see Davies par. 0013)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US20190049954 hereinafter Mitchell) in view of Yao et al. (US20190102668 hereinafter Yao), in view of Davies et al. (US20190150080 hereinafter Davies), in further view of Szigeti et al. (US20210356279 hereinafter Szigeti).
Regarding claim 18. Mitchell, Yao, and Davies teaches the method for claim 17.
However, although Mitchell teaches a network connection in a non-terrestrial network (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055), the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies explicitly fails to disclose, at a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy, a near- earth orbit satellite or a near-earth orbit satellite group is selected.
Szigeti disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for levels of autonomy, so Szigeti is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Szigeti teaches a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy (fig. 2a and pars. 0054-0055, teaches six different levels (ranging from none to fully automated systems), based on the amount of driver intervention and attentiveness, wherein levels 3-5 the automated driving system performs the entire dynamic driving task. Wherein, say level 4 reads as a first level of autonomy, wherein level 4 is similar to level 3, but no driver attention is ever required for safety, i.e., the driver may safely go to sleep or leave the driver's seat, and level 3 reads as a second level of autonomy, wherein the driver can safely turn their attention away from the driving tasks, e.g. the driver can text or watch a movie. Thus, the first level of autonomy that is higher than the second level of autonomy), a near-earth orbit satellite or a near-earth orbit satellite group is selected (pars. 0052-0053, teaches self-driving cars generally use GPS. Furthermore, ‘Dynamic driving task’ includes the operational (steering, braking, accelerating, monitoring the vehicle and roadway) and tactical (responding to events, determining when to change lanes, turn, use signals, etc.). Moreover, fig. 2 and par. 0158 and 0163 teaches the Global Positioning System (GPS) communicating with satellites and typical GPS operation as a navigator, four or more satellites must be visible to obtain an accurate result. Furthermore, par. 0202, teaches GPS navigation device, GPS receiver, or simply GPS is a device that is capable of receiving information from GPS satellites GPS reception typically requires an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites, thus it is obvious a satellite group comparatively near to the earth is selected. Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (or), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “or” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize at a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy, a near- earth orbit satellite or a near-earth orbit satellite group is selected, as disclosed by Szigeti with the combination of Mitchell, Yao, and Davies. The motivations for doing so would be to improve performance. (see Szigeti par. 0084)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US20190049954 hereinafter Mitchell) in view of Yao et al. (US20190102668 hereinafter Yao), in view of Davies et al. (US20190150080 hereinafter Davies), in view of Lee et al. (US20200045687 hereinafter Lee), in view of Shrestha et al. (US20220038243 hereinafter Shrestha), in further view of Lee et al. (US20210362742 hereinafter Lee-2).
Regarding claim 20. Mitchell, Yao, Davies, Lee, and Shrestha teaches the method for claim 19.
However, although Mitchell teaches a level of autonomous control for the vehicle (fig. 6 and pars. 0054-0055)), the combination of Mitchell, Yao, Davies, Lee, and Shrestha explicitly fails to disclose, at a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy, a mobile communications standard with a higher data transmission rate is selected compared to a mobile communications standard for the second level of autonomy.
Lee-2 disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for higher data transfer rate, so Lee-2 is analogous to Mitchell. Furthermore, Lee-2 teaches at a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy (pars. 0017-0018, teaches a level-2, level-3 or level-4 autonomous vehicle may perform level-5 autonomous traveling on a level-5 dedicated road using 5G communication. Wherein, par. 0004, teaches level 3 is lane change and overtaking on an expressway. Whereas, the language “level-3 autonomous” reads as a first level of autonomy. Furthermore, par. 0001, teaches autonomous vehicle using a 5G communication system that supports a higher data transfer rate than a 4G communication system, such as LTE. Moreover, say the term “level-1 autonomous” is when the vehicle is using a lower data transfer rate and/or is using a 4G communication system, such as LTE, and is completely non-autonomous. Thus, a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy),
a mobile communications standard with a higher data transmission rate is selected compared to a mobile communications standard for the second level of autonomy (par. 0001, teaches device that supports an autonomous traveling function for an autonomous vehicle using a 5G communication system that supports a higher data transfer rate than a 4G communication system, such as LTE. Furthermore, par. 0017, teaches the autonomous vehicle may perform level-5 autonomous traveling on a level-5 dedicated road using 5G communication. Moreover, par. 0203-0207, teaches the level of a possible autonomous traveling function of an ego vehicle based on data sensed by the sensor mounted in the vehicle 10 is high and thus traveling performance is high, and the level of the possible autonomous traveling function of the ego vehicle based on data sensed by the sensor mounted in the vehicle 10 is not high and thus traveling performance is low. Thus, when at a higher level of a possible autonomous traveling the higher data transfer using 5G is used)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize at a first level of autonomy that is higher than a second level of autonomy, a mobile communications standard with a higher data transmission rate is selected compared to a mobile communications standard for the second level of autonomy, as disclosed by Lee-2 with the combination of Mitchell, Yao, Davies, Lee, and Shrestha. The motivations for doing so would be to improve system performance. (see Lee-2 par. 0005)
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 TRACY LAUREN RAIMONDO whose telephone number is (703)756-5578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/TRACY LAUREN RAIMONDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights