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 amendments filed on 09/08/2025, in which claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the title to overcome the objection to the title of the invention. Accordingly, the objection to the title of the invention has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the abstract to overcome the objection to the abstract. Accordingly, the objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Applicant argues on page 12 of the remarks that “claim limitations in this application should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f)” because “no claim limitations in this application use the word “unit.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that no claim limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant has amended the claims to remove most instances of the generic placeholders. However, claim 8 recites “the server instruction unit…” which includes a generic placeholder. Therefore, claim 8 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as explained in the claim interpretation section below.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections:
Applicant argues on pages 15-16 of the remarks that “the operations specified in the independent claims are not something that a human can do” because the amended claims “clarified that each operation is performed by the server or the computer.” Applicant argues on page 16 of the remarks that the amendments “solidifies the claims as being directed to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application” because the claims “improves traffic safety in the high-traffic-risk areas.” Applicant further argues on page 16 of the remarks that “the additional elements are sufficient to constitute significantly more than the judicial exception” because “the features added to the claims are not “well understood, routine, and conventional.””
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicant’s arguments that the claims cannot be performed by a human because the operations are performed by the server or the computer, the server and computer are generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, performing operations by a server or computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the argument that the claims are directed towards the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states that “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology.” Additionally, 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 prior art rejections:
Applicant argues on page 15 of the remarks that Oyama does not disclose “instruct…the at least one mobile object to move to the specified high traffic risk area,” “…determining, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present,” and “the server instructs the at least one mobile object to determine a traffic risk of the mobile communication terminal” because “Oyama merely discloses that “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” ([0155]).” Applicant also argues on page 14 of the remarks that “the communication device provided on a vehicle is excluded” because “claim 1 defines that “a mobile communication terminal that is carried by a person.””
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Oyama fails to disclose the cited features of the independent claims. Claim 1 defines a high traffic risk area as an area “where the mobile communication terminal is present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a high traffic risk area includes an area where an error is greater than a threshold corresponding to the risk that the traveling course is obstructed. Therefore, Oyama discloses “instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out a mobile communication between the mobile communication terminal and the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication performed between the mobile communication terminal and the base station, the at least one mobile object to move to the specified high traffic risk area" because Oyama discloses determining the traveling control data used to control the vehicle along the route after determining an area is obstructed (Oyama [0160], [0085]-[0086], Fig. 9). Oyama also discloses the vehicle terminal can communicate with another vehicle instead of communicating directly with the base station (Oyama [0351]).
Regarding the "the one or more mobile objects have a function of receiving the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, and determining, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present" limitation, Oyama discloses traveling information including position and speed can be collected for each vehicle (Oyama [0060]). Oyama further discloses the field information on the movement of vehicles can be transmitted to each of the vehicles (Oyama [0318], [0338]) and the vehicles can use the information to avoid a collision between the vehicles (i.e., a traffic risk) (Oyama [0292], [0300], [0338]). Therefore, Oyama discloses this limitation by communicating position and speed information between vehicles to avoid a potential collision.
Regarding the "the server instructs the at least one mobile object to determine a traffic risk of the mobile communication terminal” limitation, Oyama discloses this limitation because a control system server can evaluate the reliability of the world map and determine if pseudo-sensor detection information should be used (Oyama [0307], [0314]). Specifically, the control system server can determine to use the pseudo-sensor detection information if the vehicle sensor does not recognize a pedestrian and another vehicle in a situation where the pedestrian and another vehicle are recognized on the world map (Oyama [0307]). Therefore, Oyama discloses the limitations of the independent claims for the reasons explained above and in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to “a mobile communication terminal that is carried by a person” 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 teaching the limitation specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 09/16/2025 has been received and considered.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“the server instruction unit” (claim 8)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification ([0025]-[0026]: “The server 40 includes a processing unit 200, a storage unit 280, and a mobile communication unit 270. The processing unit 200 includes a first specifying unit 210, a second specifying unit 220, an acquisition unit 230, an instruction unit 240, and a risk determining unit 250. The server 40 may be constructed by including a computer. The processing unit 200 may be implemented by a processor such as a CPU that performs calculation processing. The storage unit 280 may include a nonvolatile storage medium such as a flash memory or a volatile storage medium such as a random access memory. The mobile communication unit 270 may be implemented by a communication processor.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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; and
one or more mobile objects having a function of performing mobile communication with a mobile communication terminal that is carried by a person and is operable to communicate with the server through the base station;
wherein the server is configured to
specify, from among a plurality of areas, a high traffic risk area where the mobile communication terminal is present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value; and
instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out a mobile communication between the mobile communication terminal and the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication performed between the mobile communication terminal and the base station, the at least one mobile object to move to the specified high traffic risk area; and
the server is further configured to:
acquire information representing positions and speeds of a plurality of mobile communication terminals;
determine, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present; and
transmit information related to the traffic risk to a mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk,
wherein the one or more mobile objects have a function of receiving the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, and determining, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present, and the server instructs the at least one mobile object to determine a traffic risk of the mobile communication terminal.
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 “specifies, from among a plurality of areas, an area where a mobile communication terminal is present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value” step includes a human operator observing an area with vehicle congestion due to a collision occurring. The “determine, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present” step includes a human operator observing vehicle positions and speeds and determining a traffic risk based on whether a vehicle will need to suddenly decelerate. 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; and
one or more mobile objects having a function of performing mobile communication with a mobile communication terminal that is carried by a person and is operable to communicate with the server through the base station;
wherein the server is configured to
specify, from among a plurality of areas, a high traffic risk area where the mobile communication terminal is present and a traffic risk is higher than a predetermined value; and
instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out a mobile communication between the mobile communication terminal and the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication performed between the mobile communication terminal and the base station, the at least one mobile object to move to the specified high traffic risk area; and
the server is further configured to:
acquire information representing positions and speeds of a plurality of mobile communication terminals;
determine, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present; and
transmit information related to the traffic risk to a mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk,
wherein the one or more mobile objects have a function of receiving the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, and determining, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present, and the server instructs the at least one mobile object to determine a traffic risk of the mobile communication terminal.
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 limitations of “instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects…to move to the specified high traffic risk area,” “transmit information related to the traffic risk to a mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk,” “wherein the one or more mobile objects have a function of receiving the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals,” and “instructs the at least one mobile object to determine a traffic risk of the mobile communication terminal,” these limitations recite 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 additional limitation of “acquire information representing positions and speeds of a plurality of mobile communication terminals” recites mere data gathering that is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 Ueno et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343208 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 Ueno et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343208 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, Ueno et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343208 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, Ueno et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343208 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, Ueno et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343208 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 Ueno et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343208 A1 (hereinafter Ueno).
Regarding claim 1, Oyama discloses a system (Oyama Fig. 1) comprising:
a server communicably connected with a base station (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 specify, from among a plurality of areas, a high traffic risk area where the mobile communication terminal is 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);
and instruct, in order to cause at least one of the one or more mobile objects to carry out a mobile communication between the mobile communication terminal and the at least one mobile object instead of the mobile communication performed between the mobile communication terminal and the base station (see at least Oyama [0351]: “Further, the vehicle 100 may communicate with the base station or the server 6 through another vehicle 100 by, for example, a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, rather than directly communicating with the base station or the server 6.”),
the at least one mobile object to move to the specified high traffic risk area (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.”; Fig. 9 shows step ST67 occurs after determining an obstructed area in step ST65);
and the server is further configured to: acquire information representing positions and speeds of a plurality of mobile communication terminals (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.”);
determine, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position 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.”);
and transmit information related to the traffic risk to a mobile communication terminal determined as having the traffic risk, wherein the one or more mobile objects have a function of receiving the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals (see at least Oyama [0318]: “In the foregoing example embodiments, the server 6 collects the field information from the vehicles 100 moving in a predetermined zone or section in charge, performs mapping, generates information to be used for determining or controlling the movement of the vehicles 100, and transmits the information to each of the vehicles 100.”; [0338]: “According to the example embodiment described above, the server 6 collects the field information on the movement of the mobile bodies or vehicles 100, and transmits the collected field information to each of the vehicles 100. Thereafter, each of the vehicles 100 may determine and control the movement of the own vehicle based on the information common to the vehicles 100. On the basis of the information common to the vehicles 100, each of the mobile bodies or vehicles 100 may generate and use the course or the safely movable range in a short section that causes the vehicle 100 to travel avoiding a collision with the other vehicles 100. Accordingly, each of the vehicles 100 is less susceptible to unexpected movement of the other vehicles 100, enhancing mutual safety during the travel of the vehicles 100.”),
and determining, based on the information representing positions and speeds of the plurality of mobile communication terminals, whether there is a traffic risk in a position where each of the plurality of mobile communication terminals is present (see at least Oyama [0292]: “In a case where the recognition rate of the autonomous sensor is inappropriate for use, e.g., 80% or less, the traveling control ECU 24 may compare the result of the recognition by the autonomous sensor with the world map information also for automatic brake control. If there is a difference between the result of the recognition by the autonomous sensor and the world map information, the traveling control ECU 24 may preferentially use the world map information over the result of the recognition by the autonomous sensor.”; [0300]: “When an oncoming vehicle approaching the own vehicle is detected on the basis of the world map, the server 6 or the wireless base station 4 may warn both of the vehicles about the approach. This helps to avoid a collision between the vehicles”),
and the server instructs the at least one mobile object to determine a traffic risk of the mobile communication terminal (see at least Oyama [0307]: “For example, in a situation where a pedestrian and another vehicle are recognized on the basis of the world map but are not recognized by the automatic sensor of the own vehicle, the control system 20 of the vehicle 100 may determine the situation and use the pseudo-sensor detection 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.”).
Oyama fails to expressly disclose mobile objects performing mobile communication with a terminal that is carried by a person and operable to communicate with a server through a base station. However, Ueno teaches
and one or more mobile objects having a function of performing mobile communication with a mobile communication terminal that is carried by a person and is operable to communicate with the server through the base station (see at least Ueno [0074]-[0075]: “The pedestrian terminal 1, the in-vehicle terminal 2, and the roadside device 3 perform ITS communications with each other…The pedestrian terminal 1 is carried by a pedestrian.”; [0051]: “A second aspect of the present disclosure is the pedestrian device of the first aspect, further comprising a communication device configured to communicate with a base station device that maintains record information about a nearby area around the base station device”)
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 Ueno with reasonable expectation of success. Ueno is directed towards the related field of positioning a pedestrian using communication with a pedestrian device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Oyama with Ueno to improve positioning preciseness (see at least Ueno [0008]-[0009]: “In the case of positioning a pedestrian, a problem is that sudden changes in a moving speed and a moving direction of a pedestrian that often occur makes it difficult to perform precise positioning, even when a PDR positioning operation is used…The present disclosure has been made in view of these problems of the prior art, and a primary object of the present disclosure is to provide a pedestrian device, an information collection device, a base station device, and a positioning method which enable precise positioning of a pedestrian’s current position, fast execution of processing operations, and reduced processing load on a data processing device.”).
Regarding claim 2, Oyama in view of Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno, 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 Ueno teach all elements of the system according to claim 1 as explained above. Oyama in view of Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno and Li teach all elements of the system according to claim 4 as explained above. Oyama in view of Ueno 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 Ueno 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 Ueno and Li with Narasimham to