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 .
This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 02/16/2026, in which claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to add sufficient structure. Accordingly, the claims are no longer subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 15 of the remarks that “it is impossible for humans to judge complex traffic situations that change from moment to moment, with maintaining the traffic situation safe.” Applicant argues on page 15 of the remarks that the claims are directed towards the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because the amended claims recite “instruct…the at least one of the one or more mobile objects to automatically move.” Applicant further argues on pages 15-16 of the remarks that the claims “improve traffic safety in the high-traffic-risk areas” and are not “well understood, routine, and conventional” in the prior art references.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicant’s arguments that “it is impossible for humans to judge complex traffic situations that change from moment to moment, with maintaining the traffic situation safe,” the examiner respectfully disagrees that humans cannot judge the traffic situations. For example, humans are required to judge complex traffic situations while performing manual driving, including observing the surrounding environment and determining proper action to maintain safety. Further, a human can observe data and mentally determine whether an area poses a risk based on the evaluation. As one example, determining an area to be high risk includes mentally determining an area with traffic congestion would require a sudden deceleration.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “instruct…the at least one of the one or more mobile objects to automatically move” merely recites transmitting instructions that is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the instructions are a signal transmission that do not include a resulting control of the vehicle. Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states that “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology.” Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea does not qualify as integrating the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claims do not amount to “significantly more” and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims include well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a system, a method, and a medium for instructing a vehicle to move to a high risk area. Therefore, claims 1, 19, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and
will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a server communicably connected with a base station arranged in a predetermined region; and
one or more mobile objects having a function of performing, without using the base station, mobile relay communication between the server and a plurality of mobile communication terminals that are carried by each of pedestrians and are operable to communicate with the server through the base station;
wherein the server is configured to
acquire information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, from the plurality of mobile communication terminals via the mobile communication through the base station;
determine, based on the acquired information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position in the predetermined area, where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present, to specify, from among a plurality of areas in the predetermined region, a high traffic risk area where one or more of the plurality of mobile communication terminals are present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value;
transmit, via the base station, information related to the traffic risk to the one or more mobile communication terminals determined as having the traffic risk; and
instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out the mobile relay communication between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication that has been performed between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the base station, the at least one of the one or more mobile objects to automatically move to the specified high traffic risk area to determine whether there is the traffic risk therein, and
wherein the one or more mobile objects, which have moved to the specified high traffic area upon receiving the instructions, are configured to
perform the mobile relay communication between the one or more mobile communication terminals and the server; and
transmit, without using the base station, information related to traffic risk to at least one mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk among the one or more mobile communication terminals in the specified high traffic area.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the “determine, based on the acquired information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position in the predetermined area, where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present, to specify, from among a plurality of areas in the predetermined region, a high traffic risk area where one or more of the plurality of mobile communication terminals are present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value” step includes a human operator mentally determining an area with high traffic risk, such as a need for sudden deceleration, based on observing vehicle positions and speeds. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising:
a server communicably connected with a base station arranged in a predetermined region; and
one or more mobile objects having a function of performing, without using the base station, mobile relay communication between the server and a plurality of mobile communication terminals that are carried by each of pedestrians and are operable to communicate with the server through the base station;
wherein the server is configured to
acquire information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, from the plurality of mobile communication terminals via the mobile communication through the base station;
determine, based on the acquired information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position in the predetermined area, where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present, to specify, from among a plurality of areas in the predetermined region, a high traffic risk area where one or more of the plurality of mobile communication terminals are present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value;
transmit, via the base station, information related to the traffic risk to the one or more mobile communication terminals determined as having the traffic risk; and
instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out the mobile relay communication between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication that has been performed between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the base station, the at least one of the one or more mobile objects to automatically move to the specified high traffic risk area to determine whether there is the traffic risk therein, and
wherein the one or more mobile objects, which have moved to the specified high traffic area upon receiving the instructions, are configured to
perform the mobile relay communication between the one or more mobile communication terminals and the server; and
transmit, without using the base station, information related to traffic risk to at least one mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk among the one or more mobile communication terminals in the specified high traffic area.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “acquire information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, from the plurality of mobile communication terminals via the mobile communication through the base station,” this limitation recites mere data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding the additional limitations of “one or more mobile objects having a function of performing, without using the base station, mobile relay communication between the server and a plurality of mobile communication terminals that are carried by each of pedestrians and are operable to communicate with the server through the base station,” “transmit, via the base station, information related to the traffic risk to the one or more mobile communication terminals determined as having the traffic risk,” “wherein the one or more mobile objects, which have moved to the specified high traffic area upon receiving the instructions, are configured to perform the mobile relay communication between the one or more mobile communication terminals and the server,” and “transmit, without using the base station, information related to traffic risk to at least one mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk among the one or more mobile communication terminals in the specified high traffic area,” these limitations recite mere data transmission and signal transmission that is insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of “instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out the mobile relay communication between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication that has been performed between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the base station, the at least one of the one or more mobile objects to automatically move to the specified high traffic risk area to determine whether there is the traffic risk therein,” this limitation recites mere data transmission and signal transmission that is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). For example, these limitations merely recite instructions being communicated through signal transmission. The independent claims also recite the additional elements of a server, a base station, mobile objects, and a mobile communication terminal which are generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computing components.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Oyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201668 A1 and Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361142 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claim 2, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea by specifying types of areas with traffic risk higher than a predetermined value.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Oyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201668 A1 and Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361142 A1.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims recite the further abstract idea of determining a communication load is higher than a predetermined value. These claims recite the additional steps of specifying a communication load for an area and instructing a mobile object, which are considered data gathering and signal transmission that is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application” since there are no additional elements to the abstract idea. Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Oyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201668 A1, Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361142 A1, and Li et al., “UAV Communications for 5G and Beyond: Recent Advances and Future Trends.”
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims recite determining a communication load is high based on an event schedule or historical information, which is data gathering and data storage that is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application” since there are no additional elements to the abstract idea. Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Oyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201668 A1, Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361142 A1, Li et al., “UAV Communications for 5G and Beyond: Recent Advances and Future Trends,” and Narasimham et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0049060 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-8, 16, and 18, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims describe instructing a mobile object to move along a route or move to an area. Merely providing instructions to a mobile object is signal transmission that is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application” since there are no additional elements to the abstract idea. Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Oyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201668 A1, Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361142 A1, and Kugelmass, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0316616 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201668 A1 (hereinafter Oyama), in view of Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361142 A1 (hereinafter Ko).
Regarding claim 1, Oyama discloses a system (Oyama Fig. 1) comprising:
a server communicably connected with a base station arranged in a predetermined region (see at least Oyama [0048]: “The server 6 may be coupled to the terminal devices 2 via the dedicated network 5. The wireless base stations 4, the dedicated network 5, and the server 6 may configure a system 3 on the base station side.”);
wherein the server is configured to acquire information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, from the plurality of mobile communication terminals via the mobile communication through the base station (see at least Oyama [0060]: “Examples of the information to be collected from each of the vehicles 100 may include traveling information of the vehicle 100, occupant information related to the user, peripheral information of the vehicle 100, traffic information of a region. Examples of the traveling information of the vehicle 100 may include, in addition to the traveling direction and the traveling speed, a current location, a destination, and an attitude or movement of a vehicle body of the vehicle 100.”; [0091]: “The communication device 71 may transmit the information collected in Step ST1 to the wireless base station 4 with which the communication device 71 is able to communicate in a communication environment at the time of the transmission. The wireless base station 4 may transmit the information received from the communication device 71 of the vehicle 100 to the server 6 via the dedicated network 5.”);
determine, based on the acquired information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position in the predetermined area, where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present (see at least Oyama [0154]: “For example, the traveling control ECU 24 may determine, on the basis of the acquired peripheral information detected by the own vehicle, an obstacle, abnormality, presence or absence of risk, and presence or absence of another passing mobile body within the designated course or movable range.”);
to specify, from among a plurality of areas in the predetermined region, a high traffic risk area where one or more of the plurality of mobile communication terminals are present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value (see at least Oyama [0053]: “In the mobility information provision system 1 described above, the terminal devices 2 of the vehicles 100 and the server 6 may transmit and receive data to and from each other, by data packet routing control on the communication network including the dedicated network 5 and the wireless base stations 4.”; [0155]: “The traveling control ECU 24 may thus determine the unobstructedness of the designated course on the basis of an error between the detection value and the included information…In a case where the error is equal to or greater than a threshold (Step ST65: NO), the traveling control ECU 24 may determine that the designated course or movable range is obstructed, and cause the process to proceed to Step ST67.”; [0154]: “For example, the traveling control ECU 24 may determine, on the basis of the acquired peripheral information detected by the own vehicle, an obstacle, abnormality, presence or absence of risk, and presence or absence of another passing mobile body within the designated course or movable range.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a mobile communication terminal includes a terminal device of a vehicle; a traffic risk higher than a predetermined value includes an error greater than a threshold indicating a traveling course is obstructed);
transmit, via the base station, information related to the traffic risk to the one or more mobile communication terminals determined as having the traffic risk (see at least Oyama [0048]: “The system 3 may provide mobility information to mobile bodies. The wireless base stations 4 may be arranged for respective sections along a single road. In this case, each of the wireless base stations 4 may be configured to provide information to the terminal device 2 used in the mobile body moving in the section of which the wireless base station 4 is in charge.”; [0155]: “The traveling control ECU 24 may thus determine the unobstructedness of the designated course on the basis of an error between the detection value and the included information…In a case where the error is equal to or greater than a threshold (Step ST65: NO), the traveling control ECU 24 may determine that the designated course or movable range is obstructed, and cause the process to proceed to Step ST67.”);
and instruct…the at least one of the one or more mobile objects to automatically move to the specified high traffic risk area to determine whether there is the traffic risk therein (see at least Oyama [0160]: “In Step ST67, the traveling control ECU 24 may generate the traveling control data, on the basis of information independently detected by the autonomous sensor of the own vehicle, instead of the designated course. In the generation, the traveling control ECU 24 may use information on the designated course or movable range as subordinate information to obtain the traveling control data based on the autonomous sensor, and generate the traveling control data within the designated course or range.”; [0148]-[0149]: “FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating a process of controlling the automatic driving or the driving assist of the vehicle 100 by the traveling control ECU 24 of the control system 20 of the vehicle 100 illustrated in FIG. 3. The traveling control ECU 24 that controls the traveling of the vehicle 100 may repeatedly execute the traveling control based on the primary processed information illustrated in FIG. 9. The traveling control ECU 24 may repeat the traveling control illustrated in FIG. 9 by, for example, a cycle shorter than time taken for the vehicle 100 to travel through the course based on the primary processed information.”; [0314]: “The control system 20 of the vehicle 100 may repeatedly evaluate the reliability of the world map transmitted from the server 6 to the terminal device 2 while the vehicle 100 is traveling.”; Fig. 9 shows determining an obstructed area in step ST65),
wherein the one or more mobile objects, which have moved to the specified high traffic area upon receiving the instructions, are configured to perform the mobile relay communication between the one or more mobile communication terminals and the server (see at least Oyama [0164]: “As described above, in the example embodiment, the server 6 may collect the field information related to the movement of the vehicles 100 serving as a plurality of mobile bodies. The server 6 may generate, on the basis of the collected field information, a course or a safely movable range in a short section for each of the mobile bodies. The courses or the safely movable ranges may allow the plurality of mobile bodies to travel therewithin safely without colliding with each other, for example. The server 6 may transmit the generated course or safely movable range in the short section to each of the communication devices 71 of the terminal devices 2, as the primary processed information. The communication device 71 of the terminal device 2 may be configured to receive, from the server 6, the primary processed information related to and usable in the corresponding mobile body. Consequently, it is possible for the communication device 71 to obtain course information related to the own movement generated in consideration of a course in accordance with which another mobile body moves. Each of the mobile bodies may obtain its own course information generated in consideration of a course in accordance with which another mobile body moves, and travel on the basis of the course information”; Oyama [0160]-[0162] and Fig. 9 show controlling a vehicle in an obstructed area);
Oyama fails to expressly disclose mobile objects performing mobile communication with a terminal that is carried by a pedestrian, and operable to communicate with a server through a base station and performing communication without using the base station. However, Ko teaches
and one or more mobile objects having a function of performing, without using the base station, mobile relay communication between the server and a plurality of mobile communication terminals that are carried by each of pedestrians and are operable to communicate with the server through the base station (see at least Ko [0111]: “For such services, each vehicle may receive and send (or transmit) information as a user equipment capable of performing communication. And, depending upon the circumstances, each vehicle may select resources for communication with the help (or assistance) of the base station or without any help (or assistance) of the base station and transmit and receive messages to and from other UEs.”; [0154]: “In the present disclosure, as a method of sidelink positioning for estimating the location of a UE through communication only between a target UE and a server UE without the aid of a base station and an LCS server, an SL RTT technique is proposed in which a target UE and a server UE exchange a signal (hereinafter, PRS) for positioning and measure a round trip time (RTT) to measure a distance between the target UE and the server UE.”; Ko Fig. 22 shows user equipment includes handheld devices);
in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out the mobile relay communication between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication that has been performed between the server and the one or more mobile communication terminals via the base station (see at least Ko [0111]: “For such services, each vehicle may receive and send (or transmit) information as a user equipment capable of performing communication. And, depending upon the circumstances, each vehicle may select resources for communication with the help (or assistance) of the base station or without any help (or assistance) of the base station and transmit and receive messages to and from other UEs.”; [0154]: “In the present disclosure, as a method of sidelink positioning for estimating the location of a UE through communication only between a target UE and a server UE without the aid of a base station and an LCS server, an SL RTT technique is proposed in which a target UE and a server UE exchange a signal (hereinafter, PRS) for positioning and measure a round trip time (RTT) to measure a distance between the target UE and the server UE.”),
and transmit, without using the base station, information related to traffic risk to at least one mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk among the one or more mobile communication terminals in the specified high traffic area (This limitation is taught through the combination of Oyama and Ko. Oyama discloses “transmit…information related to traffic risk to at least one mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk among the one or more mobile communication terminals in the specified high traffic area” (see at least Oyama [0164], [0318], [0338]). Oyama fails to expressly disclose transmitting information without using the base station. However, Ko teaches transmit, without using the base station, information…to at least one mobile communication terminal (see at least Ko [0111]: “For such services, each vehicle may receive and send (or transmit) information as a user equipment capable of performing communication. And, depending upon the circumstances, each vehicle may select resources for communication with the help (or assistance) of the base station or without any help (or assistance) of the base station and transmit and receive messages to and from other UEs.”; [0154]: “In the present disclosure, as a method of sidelink positioning for estimating the location of a UE through communication only between a target UE and a server UE without the aid of a base station and an LCS server, an SL RTT technique is proposed in which a target UE and a server UE exchange a signal (hereinafter, PRS) for positioning and measure a round trip time (RTT) to measure a distance between the target UE and the server UE.” ). Therefore, the combination of Oyama and Ko teach the entirety of this limitation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Oyama with Ko with reasonable expectation of success. Ko is directed towards the related field of a wireless communication system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Oyama with Ko to improve communication efficiency (see at least Ko [0015]: “The user equipment (UE) may efficiently perform SL communication.”).
Regarding claim 2, Oyama in view of Ko teach all elements of the system according to claim 1 as explained above. Oyama further discloses wherein the server specifies, as the high traffic risk area, at least one of:
an area where rapid deceleration of a vehicle occurs, an area where a vehicle’s collision reducing brake system is activated, an area where an inter-vehicle distance is shorter than a predetermined value, an area where a traveling speed of a vehicle is higher than a predetermined value, or an area where traffic rule violation occurs (see at least Oyama [0204]: “The server CPU 14 may continue to generate the movement prohibitive information on the basis of the past mapping data until it is determined that the circumstance in which the movement prohibitive information should be generated on the basis of the mapping data is released. Possible examples of the movement prohibitive information generated on the basis of the mapping data may include information on a vehicle or van of a moving company parked on a street so as to occupy a certain location of the road, information on a vehicle in a state of emergency, and information on a sagging road or fallen trees.”; Oyama discloses at least an area where traffic rule violation occurs because a vehicle can be parked in a road causing movement prohibition).
Regarding claim 9, Oyama in view of Ko teach all elements of the system according to claim 1 as explained above. Oyama discloses the system
further comprising the mobile object (see at least Oyama [0043]: “The respective terminal devices 2 are usable in a plurality of vehicles 100 that travel on a road. The vehicles 100 may serve as a plurality of mobile bodies.”).
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. Oyama in view of Ko also disclose a method performed by the system of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a medium embodying the system of claim 1. Oyama in view of Ko also disclose a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Oyama [0358]) embodying the disclosed system as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Ko, and further in view of Li et al., “UAV Communications for 5G and Beyond: Recent Advances and Future Trends” (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, Oyama in view of Ko teach all elements of the system according to claim 1 as explained above. Oyama in view of Ko fail to expressly disclose instructing a mobile object to move to an area specified by a communication load higher than a predetermined value. However, Li teaches wherein the server is further configured to
specify a communication load of the mobile communication for each of the plurality of areas and specifies, from among the plurality of areas, a high communication load area where the communication load is higher than a predetermined value (see at least Li page 2: “On the standpoint of wireless communication aspects, UAVs can be employed as aerial communication platforms (e.g., flying BSs or mobile relays) by mounting communication transceivers to provide/enhance communication services to ground targets in high traffic demand and overloaded situations, which is commonly referred to as UAV-assisted communications [5]–[9]”; page 15: “In UAV-enabled networks, the resource-constrained mobile devices are able to offload their computation-intensive tasks to a flying UAV with high computing ability and flexible connectivity at the edge of network, thereby saving their energy and reducing traffic load at the fixed cloud servers.”);
and instruct at least one of the one or more mobile objects to move to the specified high communication load area in order to cause at least one mobile object to carry out a mobile communication between the mobile communication terminal and at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication performed between the mobile communication terminal and the base stations (see at least Li page 13: “As an initial study, Mehta and Prasad [103] introduced the concept of aerialHetNet to offload the data traffic from the congested ground BSs in hotspots, where a fleet of small UAVs were deployed as an ad-hoc network with variable operational altitudes in the air.”; page 2: “Dynamic Deployment Ability: Compared with stationary ground infrastructures, UAVs can be dynamically deployed according to real-time requirements, which is more robust against the environment changes. In addition, UAVs as aerial BSs do not require the site rental costs, thus removing the need for towers and cables”; page 17: “Even though SBSs are densely deployed to accommodate the vast amount of traffic, a heavy burden will be imposed on the backhaul links. In fact, the backhaul network cannot deal with the explosive growth in mobile traffic. One promising method is to intelligently caching some popular contents at the network edge (i.e., UAVs, relays, or D2D devices), such that the demands from users for the same popular contents can be accommodated easily without duplicate transmissions via the backhaul links. In general, mobile users are constantly moving, and thus a more flexible caching strategy is desired. UAV as a flying BS can dynamically cache the popular contents, track the mobility patterns of wireless devices and then effectively serve them.”; Li teaches mobile communication between the mobile communication terminal and at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication performed between the mobile communication terminal and the base stations because the UAV communicates with the mobile users instead of the mobile users communicating with the base station (SBS)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Oyama in view of Ko with the moving to a high communication load area taught by Li with reasonable expectation of success. Li is directed towards the related field of a UAV communication network for offloading. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Oyama in view of Ko with Li to reduce latency (see at least Li page 15: “With the deployment of MEC server, mobile users can offload their computation tasks to the edge of network by empowering the cloud computing functionalities. It serves two important purposes. 1) Reduction in application latency (i.e., execution time), if a remote device has enormous computing resources. 2) Improving battery performance because application is being executed at a remote device. In UAV-enabled networks, the resource-constrained mobile devices are able to offload their computation-intensive tasks to a flying UAV with high computing ability and flexible connectivity at the edge of network, thereby saving their energy and reducing traffic load at the fixed cloud servers.”).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a system similar to the system according to claim 4 as explained above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Ko and Li, and further in view of Narasimham et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0049060 A1 (hereinafter Narasimham).
Regarding claim 5, Oyama in view of Ko and Li teach all elements of the system according to claim 4 as explained above. Oyama in view of Ko and Li fail to expressly disclose a communication load higher than a predetermined value based on an event schedule or congestion information inferred from history information. However, Narasimham teaches
wherein the server specifies the high communication load area based on at least one of (i) information on an event holding schedule, or (ii) a congestion situation of the mobile communication terminal inferred from history information of position information of the mobile communication terminal received from the mobile communication terminal and history information of at least one of dates, weathers, or time periods associated with the position information (see at least Narasimham [0164]: “By deleting at least one of the one or more subscriptions in this Action 204, the first node 111 may then be enabled to dynamically stop receiving notifications of the subscribed event, in real time, whenever, such notifications may no longer be necessary, e.g., one hour after a football match may be over, and the load of the communications network 10 in a particular area may return to normal levels.”; [0171]: “In addition to QoS, congestion and load information, other custom factors may also be included for analysis, for example, day of week, time of day, location, event schedule etc.”; Narasimham teaches at least based on information on an event holding schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Oyama in view of Ko and Li with the high communication load determination taught by Narasimham with reasonable expectation of success. Narasimham is directed towards the related field of handling quality of service in a communications network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Oyama in view of Ko and Li with Narasimham to improve quality of service in areas of congestion (see at least Narasimham [0011]-[0013]: “Additionally, certain tracking areas may experience sudden congestion due to ongoing events and user density, such as major sports, cultural, political, social gatherings, food court, malls etc or just due to the intensity of device density. Whenever there is a such a gathering of many users, the Quality of Service (QoS) for a given tracking area may degrade, and data upload and/or download speeds may decrease. This will lead to customers being dissatisfied with the network and the data speed. Existing methods to manage network resources do not enable to secure the QoS by providing a guaranteed bitrate. Existing methods may therefore result in long latencies and failed communications, resulting in a poor operation of a communications network. It is an object of embodiments herein to improve the handling of quality of service in a communications network.”).
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a system similar to the system according to claim 5 as explained above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 6-8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Ko, and further in view of Kugelmass, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0316616 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Oyama in view of Ko teach all elements of the system according to claim 1 as explained above. Oyama in view of Ko fail to expressly disclose instructing a mobile object to travel around a route passing a plurality of areas. However, Kugelmass teaches
wherein the server instructs, if a plurality of high traffic risk areas are specified, the at least one mobile object to travel around a route passing the specified plurality of high traffic risk areas (see at least Kugelmass [0042]: “Block S150 can assign a greater distance of the highway to a first UAV furthest from the accident, assign low image resolution and/or low image density to a second UAV over low-congestion area, assign a third UAV (initially assigned to a stretch of highway including the accident) to circle the accident and capture high-resolution images at a high image capture rate, as shown in FIG. 4, and shift flight paths of adjacent fourth and fifth UAVs to cover the area of highway no longer imaged by the third UAV.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Oyama in view of Ko with the traveling around a route taught by Kugelmass with reasonable expectation of success. Kugelmass is directed towards the related field of controlling unmanned aerial vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Oyama in view of Ko with Kugelmass to focus on an area of interest (see at least Kugelmass [0042]: “In the example described above in which the area of interest is a highway with an identified point of interest that is an accident, Block S150 can assign a greater distance of the highway to a first UAV furthest from the accident, assign low image resolution and/or low image density to a second UAV over low-congestion area, assign a third UAV (initially assigned to a stretch of highway including the accident) to circle the accident and capture high-resolution images at a high image capture rate, as shown in FIG. 4, and shift flight paths of adjacent fourth and fifth UAVs to cover the area of highway no longer imaged by the third UAV.”).
Regarding claim 7, Oyama in view of Ko and Kugelmass teach all elements of the system according to claim 6 as explained above. Kugelmass further teaches
wherein the server instructs, if a plurality of high traffic risk areas are specified, a plurality of the mobile objects to travel around a route passing the specified plurality of high traffic risk areas (see at least Kugelmass [0042]: “Block S150 can assign a greater distance of the highway to a first UAV furthest from the accident, assign low image resolution and/or low image density to a second UAV over low-congestion area, assign a third UAV (initially assigned to a stretch of highway including the accident) to circle the accident and capture high-resolution images at a high image capture rate, as shown in FIG. 4, and shift flight paths of adjacent fourth and fifth UAVs to cover the area of highway no longer imaged by the third UAV.”; [0020]: “For example, flight paths can be communicated to the UAV 100 via the mobile computing device 150 that supports cellular, Wi-Fi, and/or other medium-to-long-range communication protocols, wherein the autopilot module 130 receives flight paths from the mobile computing device 150 over a short range (e.g., BTLE) communication protocol or over a wired connection to the mobile computing device 150.”; Kugelmass Fig. 2 shows routes for a plurality of mobile objects).
Regarding claim 8, Oyama in view of Ko and Kugelmass teach all elements of the system according to claim 6 as explained above. Oyama further teaches
wherein the server specifies one or more carriers providing mobile communication to the mobile communication terminal present within the specified high traffic risk area (see at least Oyama [0352]: “The plurality of servers 6 may be assigned to different zones or overlapping zones including a wide area and a narrow area, for example. The servers 6 may be provided in a distributed manner in the mobility information provision system 1 involving a plurality of carriers.”),
and instructs one or more mobile objects providing the mobile communication of the specified one or more carriers to move to the specified high traffic risk area (see at least Oyama [0053]: “If the terminal device 2 moves together with the vehicle 100, and the wireless base station 4 in charge of an area accommodating the terminal device 2 changes, the wireless base stations 4 and the server 6 may switch the routing. The server 6 may thus communicate with the terminal device 2 via the wireless base station 4 in charge of an area that newly accommodates the moving vehicle 100. The wireless base stations 4 before and after the switching may transmit and receive information related to the moving vehicle 100 and the terminal device 2 to and from each other.”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a system similar to the system according to claim 6 as explained above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a system similar to the system according to claim 7 as explained above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii et al., U.S. Patent No. 10833994 B2, directed towards mobile communications with a server through a backhaul link instead of communicating through a base station.
Oba, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0139992 A1, directed towards vehicle-to-vehicle relay communication or proximity communication with a server to communicate environment information.
Sakayanagi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0370890 A1, directed towards vehicle parking communication through a server without communicating through the wireless base station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights