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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 17 September 2025. Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are amended. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Objection to Specification
Applicant’s amendments, filed 17 September 2025, with respect to typographical errors have been fully considered and accepted. The Objection to specification has been withdrawn.
Objection to Drawings
Applicant’s amendments, filed 17 September 2025, with respect to typographical error in Fig. 1 has been fully considered and accepted. The Objection to drawings has been withdrawn.
101 Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 17 September 2025, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of Claims 1-12 has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 17 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Michael Huber et. al. WO2016150494A1 (“Huber”), Sergio Caberero Barros et. al. US20220268593A1 (“Barros”) and Garnik Kakosyan et. al. US20230194279A1 (“Kakosyan”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 9 has a typographical error. It should read “communication network” not “communication netowrk”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Huber et. al. WO2016150494A1 (“Huber”), in view of Sergio Cabrero Barros et. al. (US20220268593A1 (“Barros”).
As per Claim 1, 8, 10, 11, and 12
Huber discloses,
A method implemented by a communicating object of a communication network, the method comprising, at said communicating object: determining at least two itineraries between a first geographic position associated with a point of departure of said communicating object and a second geographic position associated with a point of arrival of said communicating object, said itineraries comprising at least three ordered geographical positions (see at least [ Page 4, line 21-23] the evaluation request may comprise at least two navigation routes between the origin and the destination, [Page 6, Line 26-28] calculating a navigational route between the origin and the destination may comprise calculating at least two navigational routes between the origin and the destination, and [Fig. 4 Step 422])
sending, to a first device, at least one geographic position of the communicating object for each of said at least two itineraries, (see at least [Page 5, line 32 – Page 6 – line 4] The method comprises receiving a route request comprising an origin and a destination, calculating a navigational route between the origin and the destination and specifying a communication network resource for the route request. The method further comprises sending an evaluation request to an evaluation function, the evaluation request comprising the calculated navigational route and the specification of a communication network resource, and receiving a response to the evaluation request, the response comprising an indication of availability of the specified communication network resource along the navigational route, [Fig. 3, Step 350], and [Fig 4. step 452]),
said at least one geographic position being contained between the first and second geographic positions, [Page 6 Line 28 – 29] the evaluation request may comprise all of the calculated navigational routes.
receiving, from the first device, in relation to said at least one geographic position, two time-related predicated values of at least one communication network indicator for, respectively, said at least one geographic position of said at least two itineraries, (see at least [Page 6, line 29-33] the response to the evaluation request may comprise an indication of availability of the specified communication network resource along each of the navigational routes in the evaluation request, [Fig. 3, Step 360], and [Fig. 4, step 462]; for the calculating step in the prediction device (claim 10) see at least [Page 9, line 29-31] the evaluation function processes the evaluation request at step 140 by determining an availability of the specified communication network resource along the navigational route, Fig. 1, step 140 and Fig. 2, steps 242, 244, 246, 252, 254,)
selecting, from among the at least two itineraries (see at least [Page 15- line 30-33] In step 470, the user device selects a recommended route from the calculated routes. This selection may be based upon navigational factors such as route length and time to destination, and on communication and computing factors such as the ability to support the identified service or services during the route, and [Fig. 4 step 470])
Huber does not explicitly disclose,
two time-related predicated values of at least one communication network indicator
the itinerary corresponding to the time-related predicted value out of the two time-related predicted values representative of the highest availability of said communication network
Barron teaches,
two time-related predicated values of at least one communication network indicator (see at least [0019] A mobile network model is a model, for given locations and times, that provides estimations or predictions of QoS performance metrics (e.g., latency, bitrate, etc.) for the one or more networks and/or the one or more applications using the one or more networks, [0027] “Input” 130 further includes “Mobile Network Model” 133. “Mobile Network Model” 133 is a function that provides estimations of one or more QoS metrics, given a location and optionally a time if “Mobile Network Model” 133 predicts future QoS (Quality of Service) metrics, and [0030] “Input” 130 further includes “QoS Requirements of Applications” 136. QoS (Quality of Service) requirements vary according to the type of an application, and QoS requirements include but not limited to latency, constant or variable bitrate)
the itinerary corresponding to the time-related predicted value out of the two time-related predicted values representative of the highest availability of said communication network (see at least [0020] Embodiments of the present invention disclose an approach of selecting an optimal route that best complies with a set of mobility, connectivity, and computing requirements according to user preferences and mobile network availability, and [0037] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of considering network connectivity in determining an optimal route using multi-objective optimization, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. Diagram 310 illustrates three possible routes (route 1, route 2, and route 3) between two points (origination and destination). Diagram 320 illustrates the same three routes with some environment conditions such as network connectivity or service availability. As shown in diagram 320, route 1 has a section with a congested network, route 2 has a section without connectivity, and whole route 3 provides network connectivity. In determining an optimal route selected from route 1, route 2, and route 3, route 2 is selected if only mobility is considered; however, route 3 is selected if network connectivity in addition to mobility is considered).
Thus, Huber discloses selection from among at least two itineraries and Barro teaches selection based on time-based predicted values for application type and network type [Fig. 6, 640].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Huber with the selection approach taught by Barro, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a vehicle with the optimal route with an expected QoS of the one or more applications [0046].
As per Claim 2,
Huber does not disclose,
a combination of said itinerary selection with another selection of one of the at least two itineraries which takes account of at least one itinerary configuration parameter between the first and second geographic positions,
selecting, from among the at least two itineraries, of the itinerary which maximizes a criterion of optimization of the journey between the first and second geographic positions.
Barro teaches,
a combination of said itinerary selection with another selection of one of the at least two itineraries which takes account of at least one itinerary configuration parameter between the first and second geographic positions (see at least see at least [0036] Several optimization paradigms are applied in the multi-objective optimization. In some embodiments, math-programming approaches may be used and they aim to maximize route quality (e g, minimizing traveling time and/or minimizing traveling distance, and [0038] After an optimal route is calculated by “Multi-Objective Optimization” 116, for a given optimal route provided by “Multi-Objective Optimization” 116 and given “QoS Requirements of Applications” 136 included in “Input” 130, “Application and “Network Configuration Planning” 120 generates “Expected Application QoS” 142, “Configurations of Applications” 143, and “Configurations of Networks” 144, [0038] For example, “Application and Network Configuration Planning” 120 determines expected latency that will be achieved by an application in every part of the optimal route. In another example, “Application and Network Configuration Planning” 120 determines a recommended maximum streaming bitrate for an application. In a further example, “Application and Network Configuration Planning” 120 determines a need for a mobile network to reserve resources for applications running in a vehicle in different areas)
selecting, from among the at least two itineraries, of the itinerary which maximizes a criterion of optimization of the journey between the first and second geographic positions. (see at least [0046] At step 480, the one or more computing devices or servers provide the vehicle with the optimal route, the expected QoS of the one or more applications, the recommended configurations of the applications, and the recommended configurations of the one or more networks, and [0054] At step 640, one or more computing devices or servers select, from the routes, an optimal route accompanied with suggested configurations of the one or more applications, and suggested configurations of the one or more networks along the optimal route.)
Thus, Huber discloses selection from among at least two itineraries and Barro teaches selecting an itinerary which maximizes a criterion of optimization [Fig. 6, 640].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Huber with the selection approach taught by Barro, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a vehicle with the optimal route with an expected QoS of the one or more applications [0046].
As per Claim 3
Huber does not disclose,
a first weighting of the selection of the itinerary corresponding to the selected time- related predicted value of said at least one performance indicator,
a second weighting of the selection of the itinerary optimizing the application of at least one itinerary configuration parameter.
.
Barro teaches,
a first weighting of the selection of the itinerary corresponding to the selected time- related predicted value of said at least one performance indicator (see at least [0032] Results of the computation by “Travel Distance Estimation” 111 may be a weighted directed graph, in which weights represent travel distances in a road network, and [0034] “Application QoS Estimation” 113 generates a directed graph with binary weights representing a road network in which “1” and “0” weights represent whether a minimum bitrate required by an application is guaranteed or not for the corresponding links (road), respectively. In another example, “Application QoS Estimation” 113 generates a heatmap that divides the map in regions with different latency levels for different applications)
a second weighting of the selection of the itinerary optimizing the application of at least one itinerary configuration parameter (see at least [0030] In a case of adaptive applications, sets of requirements can be requested; for example, best performance QoS constraints may be bandwidth >1 Mbps and latency <30 ms, and acceptable performance QoS constraints may be bandwidth >500 Kbps and latency <50 ms. These preferences may be weighted accordingly in a multi-objective optimization algorithm).
Thus, Huber discloses selection from among at least two itineraries and Barro teaches selecting an itinerary by creating weighted graphs for Multi-Objective Optimization [0042].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Huber with the selection approach taught by Barro, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a vehicle with the optimal route with an expected QoS of the one or more applications [0046].
As per Claim 4,
Huber discloses,
The method of Claim 2, wherein said at least one configuration parameter is an application or a communication service intended to be used between the first and second geographic positions. (see at least [ Page 11, line 21-24] It may be the case that a particular service, desired by the user for the duration of their journey, has communication network resource requirements not only for the user device but also for the application server providing the service).
As per Claim 5,
Huber discloses,
The method of Claim 4, wherein the application or the communication service can be selected or is implemented by default (see at least [Page 14, line 33 – Page 15, line 5] In step 432, the user device receives an identification of a service required for the navigational route. This may comprise identifying one or more currently running services on the device, in step 434, or receiving user input identifying a service in step 436. Thus, a user device may assume that all services running on the device are required to continue running for the duration of the journey to the destination in the absence of an overriding instruction from a user. A user may alternatively, or in addition, manually input an identification of a service that the user wishes to be available during the journey to the destination.)
As per Claim 6,
Huber discloses,
The method of Claim 4, wherein the selection of the application or of the communication service triggers the generation of at least one communication parameter or of at least one performance indicator of a communication network, said at least one communication parameter or said at least one performance indicator making it possible to maintain the operation of the application or of the communication service between the first and second geographic positions (see at least [page 15, line 7 – 12] On receipt of the service indication, the user device determines communication network resources required to support the identified service at step 438. These resources may include network connectivity, IP bandwidth, Quality of Service (QoS) or other resources. The user device then identifies the determined communication resources and indicates a quantitative requirement for the determined resources in step 440.)
As per Claim 7,
Huber does not disclose,
The method of Claim 1, wherein, when the communicating object is moving over the itinerary which has been selected and an application or a communication service of said communicating object is used, said use is detected in the communication network covering the current geographic position of the communicating object, such that when the communicating object approaches a future geographic position, for which a first time-related predicted value of at least one first performance indicator has been calculated, and said first time- related predicted value does not observe a first value of said first at least one performance indicator, making it possible to use the application or the communication service, at least one element of the communication network covering the future geographic position is adapted for the first time-related predicted value to observe said first value
Barros teaches,
The method of Claim 1, wherein, when the communicating object is moving over the itinerary which has been selected and an application or a communication service of said communicating object is used, said use is detected in the communication network covering the current geographic position of the communicating object, such that when the communicating object approaches a future geographic position, for which a first time-related predicted value of at least one first performance indicator has been calculated, and said first time- related predicted value does not observe a first value of said first at least one performance indicator, making it possible to use the application or the communication service, at least one element of the communication network covering the future geographic position is adapted for the first time-related predicted value to observe said first value. ( see at least [0006] calculate an optimal route, given imposed constraints including points of interest and QoS requirements of the one or more applications; prepare expected QoS of the one or more applications, recommended configurations of the one or more applications, and recommended configurations of one or more networks along the optimal route; and provide the connected vehicle with the optimal route, the recommended configurations of the one or more applications, and the recommended configurations of the one or more networks, [0049] “Output” 570 further includes “Configurations of Applications” 573 which are required configurations of the one or more applications to obtain the expected performances. “Output” 570 further includes “Configurations of Networks” 574 which are required configurations for one or more networks to obtain the expected performances of the one or more applications along a best route and [0050] The optimal route may be accompanied with suggested configurations of the one or more applications for a user of the connected vehicle and configurations of one or more networks for network or service operators.
Thus, Huber discloses selection from among at least two itineraries and Barro teaches providing the vehicle with optimal route, expected QoS of the one or more applications, the recommended configurations for applications and the recommended configurations for the networks.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Huber with the selection approach taught by Barro, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce the uncertainty in the performance of the application on the connected vehicle and help selecting routes of high quality [0003].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Garnik Kakosyan et. al. US20230194279A1 (“Kakosyan”).
As per Claim 9,
Huber discloses,
A device comprising a processor and a memory, the device configured to:
receive, from a communicating object of a communication netowrk, at least two geographic positions belonging to at least two itineraries determined by said communicating object (see at least [Page 9, line 25-27] The method comprises receiving an evaluation request from a user device in step 120, the evaluation request comprising a navigational route between an origin and a destination and a specification of a communication network resource, Fig. 1, Step 120 and Fig. 2, step 222.)
Huber does not disclose,
send, to the communicating object, two corresponding time-related predicted values of at least one performance indicator of said communication network for respectively, said at least two geographical positions
Kakosyan teaches,
send, to the communicating object, two corresponding time-related predicted values of at least one performance indicator of said communication network for respectively, said at least two geographical positions ( forecasted SLI levels for route segments are sent back to the cloud platform 209 and then the CP 202 sends the SLI levels to the initial call sender ADV 210. While the forecasting of SLI levels is done continuously in short-term batch mode, the KPI value forecasts are linked to the route not only by location from a given LLP, but also linked by the time taking into consideration either expected vehicle speed and distance (e.g., in a default mode) or third-party routing API predictions (e.g., in an advanced mode).
Thus, Huber discloses receiving from a communication object at least two positions belonging to at least two itineraries and Kakosyan teaches sending predicted service level indicators (SLIs) for the segments to the communicating device [0007].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Huber with the QoS approach taught by Kakosyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the method of the route prediction system utilizing real-time mobile communication network data [0007].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights