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 .
Claims 1-10, 12-21 are pending.
IDS is/are considered.
Drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
The following claim limitation(s) is/are presents throughout claims 1-21:
Communication part;
Traffic flow detection part;
Selection part;
The terminology “part” is ambiguous in structure/design and thus a ‘black box’ generic place holder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 9 share a similar recitation as follow:
“the first antenna being installed at a first location across a first road, the second antenna being installed at a second location across a second road intersecting the first road”
The phrases of “across a first road” and “across a second road” are indefinite because they are ambiguous in spatial sense with their vague positional terminology.
To be able to determine a positional orientation as “across a road”, it requires the presence of a reference point (i.e. across the street from [reference point A] that is on one side of the street). The lack of such reference points in the claim fail to define the exact spatial relationship and thus makes it impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the exact intended positional setup, and thus rendering the claims indefinite in boundaries.
Every respective dependent claims of claims 1, 7, and 9 fail to remedy the issues and thus are addressed by the same reasoning.
As to claim 2 specifically:
Claim 2 further cites “at a location across a road with a lower traffic flow of the road” . The phrase “across a road”, as discussed previously, amounts to the same ambiguity spatially as discussed in claim 1 above. Furthermore, the phrase “a lower traffic flow of the road” also lacks a standard or reference to compare against (i.e. what is it lowered compared to?). The problem further deepens when one considers the fact that the flow of traffic, even on the same lane of a road, fluctuates during time of day, traffic light cycles, day of week, etc. As such, the claim language is highly problematic as to how one could quantify a traffic flow in view of such fluctuation variables. Claims 8 and 10 recite similar language and are addressed by the same reasoning. Dependent claims 12, 13, and 15 of claim 2 inherit the same issues and are addressed by the same reasoning.
Claim 2 further recites “the traffic flow detection part detects the traffic flow on both the first road and the second road”. Given that the first and second roads are two different roads, thus each has its own separate traffic low (each might have multiple traffic flow in case of multiple lanes), therefore the language of “THE traffic flow on both the first road and the second road” is definite as it tries to represent different individual traffic flows at the same time. Claims 8 and 10 recite similar language and are addressed by the same reasoning. Dependent claims 12, 13, and 15 of claim 2 inherit the same issues and are addressed by the same reasoning.
As to claim 3 specifically:
Claim 3 recites “an antenna of which a straight line connecting the communication terminal and the first antenna or the second antenna does not intersect with a lane where the lighting state is green to make a connection”.
This recitation is indefinite because they are ambiguous in spatial sense with their vague positional terminology and severely lacking in contexts and background information. In particular, the claim language never have established where exactly the communication terminal is located in the vicinity of the road intersection (And if the communication terminal is mobile, the question arises if such a straight line is possible at any given time). The claim also fails to establish exactly where the first and second antenna are located (See the discussion of claim 1 above). The claim also fails to provide any clues pertaining the introduction of lanes and associated traffic lights (i.e. how many lanes per road, how many green lights possible at a given time at the intersection?). This lack of information and context causes a tremendous hardship for the audience to understand the entire premise of the claim, in addition to the fact that the sentence “a straight line connecting the communication terminal and the first antenna or the second antenna does not intersect with a lane where the lighting state is green to make a connection” is incoherent in and of itself. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been absolutely unable to draw such a straight line that does not intersect with a lane where a lane where the lighting state is green to make a connection. It is also not clear what is exactly the significance of such straight line to the particular operation of the claimed method. Claims 12 and 19 recite similar limitations, and thus are addressed by the same reasoning. Given the shortcoming of clarity that render the visualization/interpretation of claim 3 nigh impossible, the examiner will provide best attempt at BRI for purpose of examination till further clarification. Dependent claims 14 and 16 of base claim 3 are rejected by the same reasoning in view of dependency.
Claim 6 recites “a mobile body traveling on the road”. Given that there are multiple roads established in the base claim(s). It is unclear which recited road is referred to in claim 6. Claims 15-18 recite a similar language and are thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Claims 6, 15-18 recites “ a 5th generation mobile communication system”. This recitation is indefinite because, not only 5G encompasses a wide range of mobile communication systems, but also 5G technology is still currently evolving at rapid pace as the time of this Office Action. For an evolving standard like 5G, the claimed limitations of the claims 6, 15-18 appear to attempt claiming the yet-to-established expansions of 5G standards. Also because multiple versions of 5G systems exist (or soon to publish) and certain functionality can differ materially between versions, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty which implementations fall within the scope of the claims. Without specification of the required protocol version or the specific structural/operational features relied upon, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine what specific structure or behavior is necessary to satisfy the limitation.
As to claim 4 in particular:
Claim 4 recites “(…) the traffic flow is expected to deteriorate the communication quality”.
Also given that there appear to be communications being carried out by different entities (i.e. the communication part in connection with the base station, communication by the first antenna, communication by the second antenna), the phrase “the communication quality” is indefinite because it fails to address which particular communication link being referred to. (note: it cannot possibly refer to the recited historical communication quality because the language “expected” refers to the future prediction). Claims 13, 14, and 20 are directed to similar language and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
As to claim 8 which recites “an antenna that is installed at a location across a road with a lower traffic flow of the road”. It is unclear which of the first or second roads that the language “the road” is referring to. The phrase “lower traffic flow” is also unclear because there is reference to compare the flow to (i.e. lower than what?). The claim is thus indefinite. Claims 2, and 10 recite similar language and are rejected by the same reasoning.
As to claim 20, which recites “The control method according to claim 9, wherein an antenna is selected on a basis of the statistical information”. Claim 9 did not mention any statistical information, thus there is no antecedent basis. Claim 21 falls together with base claim 20 in view of dependency.
In view of the above, the instant claims appear to be repleted with clarity issues or otherwise significant ambiguity that renders the task of claim interpretation much difficult, if not impossible in many instances. As such, the examiner respectfully requests thorough revision to better clarify the claimed invention in compliant with 35 USC 112(b).
For purpose of current examination in the Office Action, the examiner will provide the best attempt at BRI until further clarifications by Applicant to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urayama (JP 2012256162) in view of Kawano et al. (US 6,564,052).
As to claim 1:
Urayama discloses:
A communication terminal, comprising:
at least a processor; and
a memory in circuit communication with the processor, (See at least Fig. 3, the apparatus comprising control unit 23 coupled to storage unit 24, with processor memory per page 4 description)
wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement:
a communication part for selecting one of a first antenna and a second antenna (See at least Abstract, “a selection part (a control part 23) capable of selecting any one of the plurality of antennas 20a and 20b as a reception antenna”)
and for being capable of communicating via a (wireless) connection with a base station connected to the first antenna and the second antenna,
(See Fig. 6 or 8, selection device 23-24 has a communication link with wireless communication 21 (i.e. “base station”) which is equipped with antenna 20a and antenna 20b)
the first antenna being installed at a first location across a first road, the second antenna being installed at a second location across a second road intersecting the first road;
(See Fig. 7, See Fig. 7, antenna 20a is located across road (L1-L2), and antenna 20b is located across a second road (L3-L4), where in road (L1-L2) intersecting the road (L3-L3) at intersection J)
a traffic flow detection part for detecting a traffic flow on at least one of the first road and the second road; (See pages 8-9, specifically: “vehicle sensor is installed in the second inflow channels L3 and L4”, “at an actual intersection J, an “ultrasonic vehicle detector” that detects the presence of the vehicle 5 is installed in any of the first inflow paths L1 and L2 and the second inflow paths L3 and L4”, and “image-type vehicle sensor can identify the presence and speed of the vehicle 5 by processing an image captured by a television camera. Therefore, an ultrasonic vehicle is used on a route provided with the image-type vehicle sensor. Traffic information such as traffic jam length and travel time can be estimated more accurately than routes with sensors”)
and a selection part for selecting an antenna to be connected from the first antenna and the second antenna depending on the traffic flow. (See pages 11-12, based on traffic inflow paths detected in L1 through L4, the control unit 23 decides selective reception mode for antennas 20a and 20b in accordance with an allocated reception time decided based on the current traffic volume. As an example: “the control unit 23 may determine whether or not to execute the all reception mode based on the current traffic volume, or based on the predicted traffic volume expected in the near future (…) In addition, the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume (…))
”
Regarding limitation of “and for being capable of communicating via a (wireless) connection with a base station”, in Fig. 6 or 8, Urayama discloses the controller part 23 communicates with wireless base station unit 21 via a link, but is silent on whether the link is wireless or not.
Kawano, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least Fig. 1, also Col. 2, lines 54-60, a configuration in which a controller (WBC) device is connected to a wireless base station WBS via links 1-3, which is implemented as a wireless link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the communication link (between the controller device 23 and the wireless base station unit 21) of Urayama can be implemented as a wireless communication link. This wireless implementation is advantageous and meaningful, especially so in the context of modern world where physical lines are gradually phased out, because of improved flexibility in design/placement (since the units can be placed anywhere in view of wireless connection). Kawano in Col. 1, lines 11-19, also noted the importance of wireless designs where there is no longer need for physical lines.
As to claim 9:
Urayama discloses :
A control method for a communication terminal comprising a communication part (See at least Fig. 3, the apparatus comprising control unit 23 coupled to storage unit 24, with processor memory per page 4 description) for selecting one of a first antenna and a second antenna (See at least Abstract, “a selection part (a control part 23) capable of selecting any one of the plurality of antennas 20a and 20b as a reception antenna”) and for being capable of communicating via a connection with a base station connected to the first antenna and the second antenna, (See Fig. 6 or 8, selection device 23-24 has a communication link with wireless communication 21 (i.e. “base station”) which is equipped with antenna 20a and antenna 20b)
the first antenna being installed at a first location across a first road, the second antenna being installed at a second location across a second road intersecting the first road, (See Fig. 7, See Fig. 7, antenna 20a is located across road (L1-L2), and antenna 20b is located across a second road (L3-L4), where in road (L1-L2) intersecting the road (L3-L3) at intersection J)
the control method comprising:
detecting a traffic flow on at least one of the first road and the second road; (See pages 8-9, specifically: “vehicle sensor is installed in the second inflow channels L3 and L4”, “at an actual intersection J, an “ultrasonic vehicle detector” that detects the presence of the vehicle 5 is installed in any of the first inflow paths L1 and L2 and the second inflow paths L3 and L4”, and “image-type vehicle sensor can identify the presence and speed of the vehicle 5 by processing an image captured by a television camera. Therefore, an ultrasonic vehicle is used on a route provided with the image-type vehicle sensor. Traffic information such as traffic jam length and travel time can be estimated more accurately than routes with sensors”)
and selecting an antenna to be connected from the first antenna and the second antenna depending on the traffic flow. See pages 11-12, based on traffic inflow paths detected in L1 through L4, the control unit 23 decides selective reception mode for antennas 20a and 20b in accordance with an allocated reception time decided based on the current traffic volume. As an example: “the control unit 23 may determine whether or not to execute the all reception mode based on the current traffic volume, or based on the predicted traffic volume expected in the near future (…) In addition, the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume (…))
”
Regarding limitation of “and for being capable of communicating via a (wireless) connection with a base station”, in Fig. 6 or 8, Urayama discloses the controller part 23 communicates with wireless base station unit 21 via a link, but is silent on whether the link is wireless or not.
Kawano, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least Fig. 1, also Col. 2, lines 54-60, a configuration in which a controller (WBC) device is connected to a wireless base station WBS via links 1-3, which is implemented as a wireless link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the communication link (between the controller device 23 and the wireless base station unit 21) of Urayama can be implemented as a wireless communication link. This wireless implementation is advantageous and meaningful, especially so in the context of modern world where physical lines are gradually phased out, because of improved flexibility in design/placement (since the units can be placed anywhere in view of wireless connection). Kawano in Col. 1, lines 11-19, also noted the importance of wireless designs where there is no longer need for physical lines.
As to claim 7:
Uramaya discloses:
A signal control apparatus (Fig. 6/8), comprising:
a communication part for selecting one of a first antenna and a second antenna (See at least Abstract, “a selection part (a control part 23) capable of selecting any one of the plurality of antennas 20a and 20b as a reception antenna”)
and for being capable of communicating via a (wireless) connection with a base station connected to the first antenna and the second antenna,
(See Fig. 6 or 8, selection device 23-24 has a communication link with wireless communication 21 (i.e. “base station”) which is equipped with antenna 20a and antenna 20b),
the first antenna being installed at a first location across a first road, the second antenna being installed at a second location across a second road intersecting the first road; (See Fig. 7, See Fig. 7, antenna 20a is located across road (L1-L2), and antenna 20b is located across a second road (L3-L4), where in road (L1-L2) intersecting the road (L3-L3) at intersection J)
a traffic flow detection part for detecting a traffic flow on at least one of the first road and the second road; See pages 8-9, specifically: “vehicle sensor is installed in the second inflow channels L3 and L4”, “at an actual intersection J, an “ultrasonic vehicle detector” that detects the presence of the vehicle 5 is installed in any of the first inflow paths L1 and L2 and the second inflow paths L3 and L4”, and “image-type vehicle sensor can identify the presence and speed of the vehicle 5 by processing an image captured by a television camera. Therefore, an ultrasonic vehicle is used on a route provided with the image-type vehicle sensor. Traffic information such as traffic jam length and travel time can be estimated more accurately than routes with sensors”)
a selection part for selecting an antenna to be connected from the first antenna and the second antenna depending on the traffic flow; (See pages 11-12, based on traffic inflow paths detected in L1 through L4, the control unit 23 decides selective reception mode for antennas 20a and 20b in accordance with an allocated reception time decided based on the current traffic volume. As an example: “the control unit 23 may determine whether or not to execute the all reception mode based on the current traffic volume, or based on the predicted traffic volume expected in the near future (…) In addition, the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume (…))
and a signal control part for controlling a traffic signal on a basis of control information received from a certain traffic control system via the communication part. (See page 10, “ indexes are calculated by the central device 4 every predetermined time, the central device 4 notifies the roadside communication device 2 of an index indicating the congestion status, and controls the roadside communication device 2 using the notified index. (…) Thereafter, the control unit 23 controls the switching timing for the changeover switch 42 according to the updated reception time of the table T.”, i.e. the control unit uses its communication interface to receive control information from traffic control system (central device 4), thereby to control the sending of traffic-related signaling to the in-vehicle devices 3)
Regarding limitation of “and for being capable of communicating via a (wireless) connection with a base station”, in Fig. 6 or 8, Urayama discloses the controller part 23 communicates with wireless base station unit 21 as well as other parts via one or more communication links, but Urayama is silent on whether the links are wireless or not.
Kawano, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least Fig. 1, also Col. 2, lines 54-60, a configuration in which a controller (WBC) device is connected to a wireless base station WBS via links 1-3, which is implemented as a wireless link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the communication link (between the controller device 23 and the wireless base station unit 21) of Urayama can be implemented as a wireless communication link. This wireless implementation is advantageous and meaningful, especially so in the context of modern world where physical lines are gradually phased out, because of improved flexibility in design/placement (since the units can be placed anywhere in view of wireless connection). Kawano in Col. 1, lines 11-19, also noted the importance of wireless designs where there is no longer need for physical lines.
As to claims 2, 8, and 10:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claims 1/7/9, wherein Urayama discloses:
the traffic flow detection part detects the traffic flow on both the first road and the second road, (See page 2, traffic detection system includes a plurality of sensors “installed at appropriate places (…) for the purpose of counting number of vehicles flowing into each intersection Ji”)
and the selection part selects, from the first antenna and the second antenna, an antenna that is installed at a location across a road with a lower traffic flow of the road. (See page 10, “if the degree of congestion of the first inflow paths L1 and L2 is higher than the degree of congestion of the second inflow paths L3 and L4, at a predetermined rate according to the difference in the degree of congestion. The reception time of the first antenna 20a corresponding to the first inflow paths L1 and L2 is set longer than the reception time of the second antenna 20b corresponding to the second inflow paths L3 and L4”, namely the L3/L4 has less traffic flow, and thus antenna 20b is chosen with shorter reception time)
As to claim 4:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein Urayama discloses:
the selection part refers to a statistical information showing a history of communication quality (See page 12, determining traffic flow based on known patterns such as low volume during midnight or early morning (i.e. statistical information)) and selects an antenna on a basis of the statistical information instead of selecting an antenna depending on the traffic flow, (See page 12, “the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume or predicted traffic volume, but also, for example, in the time zone when the traffic volume is low such as midnight or early morning. Whether or not to execute the all-selection mode depends on whether or not the traffic volume of the inflow paths L1 to L4 is clearly reduced”) if an antenna selection depending on the traffic flow is expected to deteriorate the communication quality. (page 11-12, traffic volume is correlate with level of interreference, i.e. more traffic equates more interreference, thus night time or early morning will have minimum interreference)
As to claim 13:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claim 2, wherein Urayama discloses:
the selection part refers to a statistical information showing a history of communication quality (See page 12, determining traffic flow based on known patterns such as low volume during midnight or early morning (i.e. statistical information)) and selects an antenna on a basis of the statistical information instead of selecting an antenna depending on the traffic flow, (See page 12, “the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume or predicted traffic volume, but also, for example, in the time zone when the traffic volume is low such as midnight or early morning. Whether or not to execute the all-selection mode depends on whether or not the traffic volume of the inflow paths L1 to L4 is clearly reduced”) if an antenna selection depending on the traffic flow is expected to deteriorate the communication quality. (page 11-12, traffic volume is correlate with level of interreference, i.e. more traffic equates more interreference, thus night time or early morning will have minimum interreference)
As to claim 20:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein Urayama discloses:
an antenna is selected on a basis of the statistical information instead of selecting an antenna depending on the traffic flow, (See page 12, “the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume or predicted traffic volume, but also, for example, in the time zone when the traffic volume is low such as midnight or early morning. Whether or not to execute the all-selection mode depends on whether or not the traffic volume of the inflow paths L1 to L4 is clearly reduced”) if an antenna selection depending on the traffic flow is expected to deteriorate the communication quality, referring to a statistical information showing a history of communication quality. (page 11-12, traffic volume is correlate with level of interreference, i.e. more traffic equates more interreference, thus night time or early morning will have minimum interreference)
Claim(s) 6, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Urayama (JP 2012256162) in view of Kawano et al. (US 6,564,052) in further view of Parron et al. (US 20200211402).
As to claims 6, 15, 17:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claims 1/2/4, wherein Urayama discloses:
the first antenna and the second antenna are directional antennas in a base station (See at least Abstract, pages 8-9, directional antennas 20a and 20b) that provides a service to a mobile body traveling on the road, and the communication terminal is connected to a traffic control system via the base station and performs communication for a traffic control with the traffic control system. (See page 5-6, the base station with antennas 20a-b serving vehicles, for examples a mobile body with in-vehicle communication device 3 traveling in either of L1-L4. See Fig. 8-9, page 3, the wireless system is connected to a central equipment 4 that control traffics)
Except that neither of the references of record mention the base station involved in the traffic system is of a 5G mobile communication system.
Parron, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least ¶0082-0083, a traffic-controlling system that collaborate with a base station with directional antennas much like Urayama, and wherein the base station is specifically an eNB of a 5G system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the base station used in the system of Urayama to be implemented in a 5G network base station. Given that 5G system is seeing rapid adoption with advanced features, the use this technology in Urayama allows for benefits of having compatibility with modern features and thus easy to update/upgrades.
Claim(s) 3, 12, 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Urayama (JP 2012256162) in view of Kawano et al. (US 6,564,052) in further view of Kelly (US 2018/0315306)
As to claims 3, 12, 19:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claim 1/2/9 and the selection part selects, from the first antenna and the second antenna, an antenna of which a straight line connecting the communication terminal and the first antenna or the second antenna does not intersect with a lane where the lighting state is green to make a connection. (See Urayama, See at least Fig. 7, in particular antennas 20a, 20b, and station 2 which houses the terminal within. One can draw a line connecting antenna 20a and station 2 without intersecting L1 and L4, or a line connecting antenna 20b and station 2 without L2 and L4 when a green light of any of those lane is up)
Except neither of Urayama and Kawano disclose the traffic flow detection part uses one of a lighting state of a traffic signal and signal control signal to detect the traffic flow.
In a related field of endeavor, Kelly discloses in at least ¶0059 that a traffic monitoring device to monitor current status a traffic light (red, green for a certain lane etc.), thereby reporting the current traffic data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the traffic sensor in Urayama to monitor current status a traffic light (red, green for a certain lane etc.), thereby reporting the current traffic data. Given that in Uramaya (page 2) discusses the use of multiple types of traffic sensor, including image/optical type, which naturally is compatible with Kelly’s system that monitor traffic by detecting traffic light colors. This particular choice of monitoring traffic via traffic light is clearly within Urayama’ s vision of design and is beneficial in at least the simplicity of design since only a camera with color recognition is needed, in case more advanced sensors with vehicle counting are not readily available or otherwise expensive.
As to claim 14:
Urayama in view of Kawano and Kelly discloses all limitations of claims 3, wherein Urayama discloses:
the selection part refers to a statistical information showing a history of communication quality (See page 12, determining traffic flow based on known patterns such as low volume during midnight or early morning (i.e. statistical information)) and selects an antenna on a basis of the statistical information instead of selecting an antenna depending on the traffic flow, (See page 12, “the control unit 23 not only determines whether or not the all reception mode can be executed based on the calculated current traffic volume or predicted traffic volume, but also, for example, in the time zone when the traffic volume is low such as midnight or early morning. Whether or not to execute the all-selection mode depends on whether or not the traffic volume of the inflow paths L1 to L4 is clearly reduced”) if an antenna selection depending on the traffic flow is expected to deteriorate the communication quality. (page 11-12, traffic volume is correlate with level of interreference, i.e. more traffic equates more interreference, thus night time or early morning will have minimum interreference)
As to claim 16:
Urayama in view of Kawano and Kelly discloses all limitations of claim 3, wherein Urayama discloses:
the first antenna and the second antenna are directional antennas in a base station (See at least Abstract, pages 8-9, directional antennas 20a and 20b) that provides a service to a mobile body traveling on the road, and the communication terminal is connected to a traffic control system via the base station and performs communication for a traffic control with the traffic control system. (See page 5-6, the base station with antennas 20a-b serving vehicles, for examples a mobile body with in-vehicle communication device 3 traveling in either of L1-L4. See Fig. 8-9, page 3, the wireless system is connected to a central equipment 4 that control traffics)
Kelly further discloses a system with UE and a base station is of a 5G system. (¶0047)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the base station used in the system of Uramaya to be implemented as 5G network base station. Given that 5G system is seeing rapid adoption with advanced features, the use this technology in Urayama allows for benefits of having compatibility with modern features and thus easy to update/upgrades.
Claim(s) 5, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Urayama (JP 2012256162) in view of Kawano et al. (US 6,564,052) in further view of Meshkati (US 2021/0314055)
As to claim 5, and 21:
Urayama in view of Kawano discloses all limitations of claim 4/20, however is/are silent on the statistical information includes a cumulative time of communication interruptions during communication with the antenna being selected or a number of times of occurrence of the communication interruptions, and a selection of an antenna is performed on a basis of the statistical information instead of selecting an antenna depending on the traffic flow, if at least one of the cumulative time of the communication interruptions during communication with the antenna being selected and the number of times of occurrence of the communication interruptions exceeds a predetermined criterion.
Meshkati discloses in at least Abstract, ¶0104-0105, 0120, a system/method wherein a communication device to keep track of a number of times where radio link failure associated with a particular current antenna. When the total of said radio link failure events reach a threshold number, the UE perform reselection of antennas to avoid radio link failure
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Urayama and Kawano to incorporate the feature of a communication device to keep track of a number of times where radio link failure associated with a particular current antenna for antenna selection. . As radio link failure renders the system completely inoperable, it is natural to prioritize this condition over the traffic flow criteria to ensure the system to at least be functional first and foremost.
As to claim 18:
Urayama in view of Kawano and Meshkati discloses all limitations of claims 5, wherein Urayama discloses:
the first antenna and the second antenna are directional antennas in a base station (See at least Abstract, pages 8-9, directional antennas 20a and 20b) that provides a service to a mobile body traveling on the road, and the communication terminal is connected to a traffic control system via the base station and performs communication for a traffic control with the traffic control system. (See page 5-6, the base station with antennas 20a-b serving vehicles, for examples a mobile body with in-vehicle communication device 3 traveling in either of L1-L4. See Fig. 8-9, page 3, the wireless system is connected to a central equipment 4 that control traffics)
Meshkati further discloses a system with UE and a base station is of a 5G system. (¶0023, 0024)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the base station used in the system of Uramaya to be implemented as 5G network base station. Given that 5G system is seeing rapid adoption with advanced features, the use this technology in Urayama allows for benefits of having compatibility with modern features and thus easy to update/upgrades.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO – 2018/227039 - a vehicle apparatus stores road side unit information associated with a plurality of road side units. The vehicle may receive a request, from another vehicle apparatus, for a history of detected road side units (or a road side unit detection history). In response to the request, the vehicle may send at least a portion of the road side unit detection history to the other vehicle apparatus. In some examples, before storing the road side unit information associated with the plurality of road side units, the vehicle may detect the road side unit information, such that the stored road side unit information represents the road side unit detection history of the vehicle apparatus. The stored road side unit information associated each road side unit may be further associated with at least one of a respective location or a respective time at which the road side unit information was detected by the vehicle apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645