DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 07/15/2026.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are added.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are pending for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 22 and 23 similarly recite “evaluating the degree of influence based on whether a communication packet for providing the service is predicted to occur within a period during which communication is interrupted due to the server switching process.” Examiner notes claim 1, 8 and 15 fail to teach any communication or process of switching of a source server to another entity and merely recite giving an instruction to switch the source server which does not necessarily teach a switching process has occurred. It is unclear and indefinite how evaluating the degree of influence is determined during an interruption of a communication during the switching process when no communication to switch the server is necessarily established and/or claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vassilovski et al. (US 2023/0032903 A1) hereinafter “Vassilovski.”
Regarding Claim 1, Vassilovski teaches A management system (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0043, 0132 & Fig. 11, apparatus including a communication manager) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0133-0134 & Fig. 11, instructions stored in memory); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do management processing (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0133-0134 & Fig. 11, processor to execute instructions), the management processing includes:
evaluating a degree of influence (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0070, 0078, 0094, predictive assignment of one or more roadside units (RSUs) based on i.e. trajectory or speed of a UE, traffic conditions, weather conditions and/or the like) of a server switching process of switching a provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078 & 0084, assigning or switching UE from a sidelink positioning session with one RSU; see also paragraphs 0091, 0094 & Figs. 6-7, RSU assignments) of a service (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0074 & 0094, reducing congestion and/or collision avoidance) for a mobile object (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0038, 0058 & Figs. 1-3, user equipment (UE) and/or vehicle), which is exerted on the service (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0074 & 0094, said congestion and/or collision);
deciding a timing to switch the provision source server on the basis of an evaluation result of the evaluating (Vassilovski: paragraph 0071, 0078, determine which RSU(s) should be assigned to the UE based on obtained information (i.e. predicted trajectory and/or speed)); and
giving an instruction to switch the provision source server at the timing decided by the deciding (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078 & 0084, assigning or switching UE from a sidelink positioning session with one RSU to another RSU).
Regarding Claim 2, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the deciding is deciding a timing at which the evaluation result is lower than a predetermined degree of influence as the timing to switch the provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0077, select a RSU that satisfies a criteria (route information, RSU capacity threshold, distance and/or the link)).
Regarding Claim 3, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the evaluating performs evaluation on the basis of evaluation target information (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, traffic patterns including congestion associated with the UE) including at least one of communication packet information for communication between the provision source server and the mobile object and surrounding information indicating a surrounding environment of the mobile object (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, location topology, location conditions and vehicle characteristics associated with the UE).
Regarding Claim 4, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the surrounding information includes at least one piece of information or information analyzed on the basis of at least one piece of information among information acquired from the mobile object, information acquired from another mobile object located around the mobile object, information acquired from an information acquisition device installed in a path on which the mobile object moves, and information acquired from an information provision server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, said location topology, location conditions and vehicle characteristics associated with the UE, thus acquiring information from the UE).
Regarding Claim 6, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the management processing further includes providing an application program for providing the service or application state information indicating an operation state of the service which is provided to the mobile object by the application program to a server serving as a switching destination in response to the instruction (Vassilovski: paragraph 0042, communication manager (of UE) may receive configuration information indicating at least one other UE assigned to the UE for sidelink positioning).
Regarding Claim 7, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches a management apparatus performs the evaluating, the deciding, and the giving (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0043, 0132 & Fig. 11, communication device including a communication manager),
wherein the management apparatus is included in the provision source server or a server that manages the provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0132, communication manager may be included in an apparatus (i.e. base station, network controller)).
Regarding Claim 8, Vassilovski teaches A management apparatus (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0043, 0132 & Fig. 11, communication device including a communication manager) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0133-0134 & Fig. 11, instructions stored in memory); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do management processing (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0133-0134 & Fig. 11, processor to execute instructions), the management processing includes:
evaluating a degree of influence (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0070, 0078, 0094, predictive assignment of one or more roadside units (RSUs) based on i.e. trajectory or speed of a UE, traffic conditions, weather conditions and/or the like) of a server switching process of switching a provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078 & 0084, assigning or switching UE from a sidelink positioning session with one RSU; see also paragraphs 0091, 0094 & Figs. 6-7, RSU assignments) of a service (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0074 & 0094, reducing congestion and/or collision avoidance) for a mobile object (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0038, 0058 & Figs. 1-3, user equipment (UE) and/or vehicle), which is exerted on the service (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0074 & 0094, said congestion and/or collision);
deciding a timing to switch the provision source server on the basis of an evaluation result of the evaluating (Vassilovski: paragraph 0071, 0078, determine which RSU(s) should be assigned to the UE based on obtained information (i.e. predicted trajectory and/or speed)); and
giving an instruction to switch the provision source server at the timing decided by the deciding (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078 & 0084, assigning or switching UE from a sidelink positioning session with one RSU to another RSU).
Regarding Claim 9, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the deciding is deciding a timing at which the evaluation result is lower than a predetermined degree of influence as the timing to switch the provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0077, select a RSU that satisfies a criteria (route information, RSU capacity threshold, distance and/or the link)).
Regarding Claim 10, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the evaluating performs evaluation on the basis of evaluation target information (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, traffic patterns including congestion associated with the UE) including at least one of communication packet information for communication between the provision source server and the mobile object and surrounding information indicating a surrounding environment of the mobile object (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, location topology, location conditions and vehicle characteristics associated with the UE).
Regarding Claim 11, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the surrounding information includes at least one piece of information or information analyzed on the basis of at least one piece of information among information acquired from the mobile object, information acquired from another mobile object located around the mobile object, information acquired from an information acquisition device installed in a path on which the mobile object moves, and information acquired from an information provision server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, said location topology, location conditions and vehicle characteristics associated with the UE, thus acquiring information from the UE).
Regarding Claim 13, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the management processing further includes providing an application program for providing the service or application state information indicating an operation state of the service which is provided to the mobile object by the application program to a server serving as a switching destination in response to the instruction (Vassilovski: paragraph 0042, communication manager (of UE) may receive configuration information indicating at least one other UE assigned to the UE for sidelink positioning).
Regarding Claim 14, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the management apparatus is included in the provision source server or a server that manages the provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0132, communication manager may be included in an apparatus (i.e. base station, network controller)).
Regarding Claim 15, Vassilovski teaches A management method (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0043, 0132 & Fig. 11, communication device including a communication manager) comprising:
performing an evaluation process of evaluating a degree of influence (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0070, 0078, 0094, predictive assignment of one or more roadside units (RSUs) based on i.e. trajectory or speed of a UE, traffic conditions, weather conditions and/or the like) of a server switching process of switching a provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078 & 0084, assigning or switching UE from a sidelink positioning session with one RSU; see also paragraphs 0091, 0094 & Figs. 6-7, RSU assignments) of a service (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0074 & 0094, reducing congestion and/or collision avoidance) for a mobile object (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0038, 0058 & Figs. 1-3, user equipment (UE) and/or vehicle), which is exerted on the service (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0074 & 0094, said congestion and/or collision);
performing a decision process of deciding a timing to switch the provision source server on the basis of an evaluation result of the evaluation process(Vassilovski: paragraph 0071, 0078, determine which RSU(s) should be assigned to the UE based on obtained information (i.e. predicted trajectory and/or speed)); and
giving an instruction to switch the provision source server at the timing decided by the decision process (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078 & 0084, assigning or switching UE from a sidelink positioning session with one RSU to another RSU).
Regarding Claim 16, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the decision process includes deciding a timing at which the evaluation result is lower than a predetermined degree of influence as the timing to switch the provision source server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0077, select a RSU that satisfies a criteria (route information, RSU capacity threshold, distance and/or the link)).
Regarding Claim 17, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the evaluation process includes performing evaluation on the basis of evaluation target information (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, traffic patterns including congestion associated with the UE) including at least one of communication packet information for communication between the provision source server and the mobile object and surrounding information indicating a surrounding environment of the mobile object (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, location topology, location conditions and vehicle characteristics associated with the UE).
Regarding Claim 18, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the surrounding information includes at least one piece of information or information analyzed on the basis of at least one piece of information among information acquired from the mobile object, information acquired from another mobile object located around the mobile object, information acquired from an information acquisition device installed in a path on which the mobile object moves, and information acquired from an information provision server (Vassilovski: paragraph 0074, said location topology, location conditions and vehicle characteristics associated with the UE, thus acquiring information from the UE).
Regarding Claim 20, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches further comprising, providing an application program for providing the service or application state information indicating an operation state of the service which is provided to the mobile object by the application program to a server serving as a switching destination in response to the instruction (Vassilovski: paragraph 0042, communication manager (of UE) may receive configuration information indicating at least one other UE assigned to the UE for sidelink positioning).
Regarding Claim 21, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the evaluating evaluates the degree of influence based on whether a communication packet for providing the service is predicted to occur within a period during which communication is interrupted due to the server switching process (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0070, 0074 & 0094, selecting a RSU based on predicted congestion, therefore further considering temporary outage and/or interruptions when selecting a RSU).
Regarding Claim 22, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the evaluating evaluates the degree of influence based on whether a communication packet for providing the service is predicted to occur within a period during which communication is interrupted due to the server switching process (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0070, 0074 & 0094, selecting a RSU based on predicted congestion, therefore further considering temporary outage and/or interruptions when selecting a RSU).
Regarding Claim 23, Vassilovski teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the evaluation process includes evaluating the degree of influence based on whether a communication packet for providing the service is predicted to occur within a period during which communication is interrupted due to the server switching process (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0070, 0074 & 0094, selecting a RSU based on predicted congestion, therefore further considering temporary outage and/or interruptions when selecting a RSU).
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments:
a) Vassilovski alone or in combination fails to teach handover or switching a provision source server to a second base station for a mobile object and instead relates to sidelink communications (remarks, page 6).
b) Vassilovski alone or in combination fails to teach evaluating the degree of harm or the negative impact caused by the interruption that occurs during the transition between servers since Vassilovski merely selects an optimal connection destination (remarks, page 6).
Examiner’s response:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding argument a), although Applicants have argued Vassilovski fails to teach handover and/or switching a provision source server to a second base station for a mobile object, Examiner note these features are not recited and/or claimed. Claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to teach any communication or networking architecture and also fails to explicitly or implicitly recite any handover or switching of a source server to another entity. Claim 1, 8 and 15 merely recite giving an instruction to switch the source server at the timing decided without identifying a component or entity to which the switching occurs. Claims fail to further teach any handover or switching is performed or that the mobile object is in communication with another entity. Therefore, Examiner considers the provision source server to be any networking component or entity that is evaluated to determine whether to switch a service to another networking component or entity under the broadest reasonable interpretation. That being stated, as previously presented, Vassilovski teaches a UE may transmit route information to another communication device associated with a wireless network (e.g., an RSU, a base station, another UE, and/or the like). The communication device (e.g., via network controller, the base station, an RSU, and/or the like) may use the route information to determine which RSU(s) should be assigned to the UE (Vassilovski: paragraph 0071). For example, in a situation where the communication device determines, based on the trajectory and/or speed of the vehicle, that the UE will leave the coverage area of a first RSU and enter the coverage area of a second RSU, the communication device may determine to assign the second RSU to the UE (Vassilovski: paragraphs 0077-0078). Examiner notes the RSUs of Vassilovski: function and operate as fixed wireless transceivers designed to connect mobile objects to the network and are thus considered localized base stations. Since Vassilovski: teaches a communication device in communication with a first RSU and a decision is made to switch the communication of a UE to a second RSU, Vassilovski: similarly teaches evaluating a server switching process of switching a provision source service for a mobile object.
Regarding argument b), Examiner notes claims 1, 8 and 15 do not implicitly or explicitly teach evaluating the degree of harm or negative impact caused by the interruption that occurs during the transmission between servers as argued in the remarks. Claim 1, 8 and 15 recite deciding and/or giving an instruction to switch a source server based an evaluation of a degree of influence of the switching process. Therefore, as written, the claims teach evaluating any condition that may exert influence on switching of a server or entity according to the broadest reasonable interpretation. That being stated, Vassilovski teaches determining which RSU among multiple RSUs is best suited to serve a UE to reduce congestion and/or collision in the network (Vassilovski: paragraph 0070) and further teaches the communication device (e.g., via network controller, the base station, an RSU, and/or the like) may use the route information to determine which RSU should be assigned to the UE (Vassilovski: paragraph 0071). Examiner notes since the switching or selection of the RSU may reduce congestion and/or the likelihood of collision, Vassilovski: similarly teaches determining a degree of influence when switching a service of the mobile device from a network entity associated with a first RSU to a selected entity or RSU.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 and respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fei et al. (US 2024/0169826 A1) teaches an in-vehicle device may detect a surrounding environment from a vehicle perspective, to obtain vehicle sensing data including a location, a speed, and a size and a color of a surrounding traffic participant through the camera paragraph 0095).
Lei et al. (US 2019/0014523 A1) teaches a UE reports current location information between RSUs and then switches between a road area covered by the first RSU and a road area covered by the second RSU (paragraph 0070).
Song et al. (US 2018/0279183 A1) teaches a first RSU sends a switching notification message to an OBU, where the switching notification message is used to instruct the OBU to prepare to switch a home RSU of the OBU from the first RSU to the second RSU (paragraphs 0129-0130 & Fig. 2).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 469-295-9193. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights