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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/16/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
The independent claims recite a practical application of controlling the moving body to automatically switch communication modes.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm (US 20180115917 A1) in view of Ewert (US 20130115956 A1) and Yuasa (US 20120116659 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilhelm discloses a communication management device comprising (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1);
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory the at least one processor performing operations to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1);
collect traffic route information indicating a condition of a traffic route in a predetermined area (Paragraphs 0048-0049);
based on the collected traffic route information (Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0084-0085);
to a moving body moving in the predetermined area (Paragraphs 0068-0070);
to control the moving body to automatically switch the communication mode according to a position of the moving body using the map (Paragraphs 0088; “at the current position, the communication control section 102 may appropriately select the communication setting”).
Wilhelm does not specifically state generate a map indicating a communication mode to be preferentially used at each position in the predetermined area; the map indicating; provide the map; using the map.
However, Ewert teaches generate a map indicating a communication mode to be preferentially used at each position in the predetermined area (Abstract, Paragraphs 0048, 0103-0106, Figs. 1 and 9);
the map indicating (Abstract, Paragraphs 0048, 0103-0106, Figs. 1 and 9; “generate and maintain the radio coverage map 10”);
provide the map (Paragraph 0054);
using the map (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with generating, providing, and using a map indicating communication modes of Ewert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different locations have preferred radio access technologies such as 2g, 3g, or 4g. By mapping out the preferred technologies of individual regions and providing the map to devices in the regions, these devices can use the frequency bands more efficiently and have better network quality. One would have been motivated to combine Wilhelm with Ewert as this achieves improved network utilization. As stated in Ewert, “mobile operators have the possibility to define preferred radio access systems as a function of a location of a mobile station, i.e., a mobile phone, a PAD, a mobile computer, etc. This allows the radio network operators to use available frequency bands more efficiently, to reduce the number of handovers, and to improve user perceptions of the network quality” (Paragraph 0026).
Wilhelm does not specifically state as the communication mode to be preferentially used at congested positions, a communication mode with less delay than the communication mode to be preferentially used at non-congested positions.
However, Yuasa teaches as the communication mode to be preferentially used at congested positions, a communication mode with less delay than the communication mode to be preferentially used at non-congested positions (Paragraphs 0057-0058; “with more traffic congestion, as determined from stored traffic information 402, motor vehicle 100 may begin communicating with a service provider more frequently”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with a communication mode with less delay at congested positions than non-congested positions of Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Wilhelm and Yuasa are in the field of determining communication settings for different locations and traffic conditions. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves more accurate updated traffic information (Yuasa – Paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 2, Wilhelm discloses the at least one processor further performs operation to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1);
collect a traffic volume in a road section in the predetermined area as the traffic route information (Paragraph 0017, 0048-0049).
Regarding claim 4, Wilhelm discloses the at least one processor further performs operation to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1);
collect information sensed by the moving body on the traffic route as the traffic route information from the moving body (Paragraph 0017, 0048-0049).
Regarding claim 5, Wilhelm discloses the at least one processor further performs operation to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1).
Wilhelm does not specifically state generate the map including designation of a wireless network to be used at each position in the predetermined area.
However, Ewert teaches generate the map including designation of a wireless network to be used at each position in the predetermined area (Abstract, Paragraphs 0048, 0103-0106, Figs. 1 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with generating a map including wireless networks to be used at each position of Ewert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different locations have preferred radio access technologies such as 2g, 3g, or 4g. By mapping out the preferred technologies of individual regions, devices in that area can use the frequency bands more efficiently and have better network quality. One would have been motivated to combine Wilhelm with Ewert as this achieves improved network utilization. As stated in Ewert, “mobile operators have the possibility to define preferred radio access systems as a function of a location of a mobile station, i.e., a mobile phone, a PAD, a mobile computer, etc. This allows the radio network operators to use available frequency bands more efficiently, to reduce the number of handovers, and to improve user perceptions of the network quality” (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 8, Wilhelm discloses the at least one processor further performs operation to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1);
to a self-driving vehicle or a remote control vehicle moving in the predetermined area (Paragraphs 0068-0070, 0088; Remote control vehicle is mapped to vehicle controlling communication settings).
Wilhelm does not specifically state provide the map.
However, Ewert teaches provide the map (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with providing a map of Ewert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different locations have preferred radio access technologies such as 2g, 3g, or 4g. By mapping out the preferred technologies of individual regions and providing the map to devices in the regions, the devices can use the frequency bands more efficiently and have better network quality. One would have been motivated to combine Wilhelm with Ewert as this achieves improved network utilization. As stated in Ewert, “mobile operators have the possibility to define preferred radio access systems as a function of a location of a mobile station, i.e., a mobile phone, a PAD, a mobile computer, etc. This allows the radio network operators to use available frequency bands more efficiently, to reduce the number of handovers, and to improve user perceptions of the network quality” (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 10, Wilhelm discloses a communication management method comprising (Paragraphs 0014, 0060-0064).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 10 can be clearly performed with the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, Wilhelm discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing of (Paragraphs 0024, 0047, Claim 1).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claim 1. The recording medium taught/disclosed in claim 11 can be clearly performed with the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm, Ewert, and Yuasa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueno (US 20220408307 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wilhelm discloses the traffic volume.
Wilhelm does not specifically state the traffic volume includes a traffic volume of a pedestrian in the road section in the predetermined area.
However, Ueno teaches the traffic volume includes a traffic volume of a pedestrian in the road section in the predetermined area (Paragraphs 0065-0071, 0078-0082, Figs. 3A and 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with including a traffic volume of pedestrians in the road section of Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when there is a large amount of pedestrians, it is possible to change from direct communication to indirect communication. In direct communication, the vehicle directly communicates with the pedestrian terminal, while in indirect communication, the vehicle communicates with a roadside apparatus that broadcasts the congestion operation message to pedestrian terminals. Switching to indirect communication reduces the network load on the communication system which facilitates autonomous vehicle driving. One would have been motivated to combine Wilhelm with Ueno as this improves the stability of terminal to terminal connections. As stated in Ueno, “As a result, it becomes possible to effectively avoid congestion in the terminal-to-terminal communications and improve the stability of the terminal-to-terminal communications, to thereby properly assist the driving of autonomous vehicles” (Paragraph 0011).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm, Ewert, and Yuasa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kedalagudde (US 20190150082 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wilhelm discloses the at least one processor further performs operation to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1).
Wilhelm does not specifically state generate the map defining the communication mode to be used for each application program.
However, Kedalagudde teaches generate the map defining the communication mode to be used for each application program (Paragraphs 0066-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with mapping between communication modes and application programs of Kedalagudde with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different applications may be supported by different radio access technologies based on factors such as data rate and latency. It is important to map these applications to supported radio access technologies so users can use the application even in different regions. One would have been motivated to combine Wilhelm with Kedalagudde as this achieves radio access technology interoperability. As stated in Kedalagudde, “the mapping table is used not for load balancing among the RATS (load-independent), but for interoperability; the mapping table in some embodiments thus provides interoperability among the V2X UEs” (Paragraph 0067).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm, Ewert, and Yuasa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bilinski (US 8495237 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Wilhelm discloses the at least one processor further performs operation to (Paragraphs 0047, Claim 1).
Wilhelm does not specifically state generate the map including designation of a bit rate of video data to be transmitted at each position in the predetermined area.
However, Bilinski teaches generate the map including designation of a bit rate of video data to be transmitted at each position in the predetermined area (Col. 6 Line 54 – Col. 7 Line 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wilhelm with mapping between different areas and lower video bit rates of Bilinski with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different locations may have reduced network capabilities, or lower video bit rates. The server is able to determine whether to adjust the bit rates that videos are encoded based on factors such as the vehicle speed, buffer, and size of the areas with reduced network capabilities. This provides an uninterrupted media stream. One would have been motivated to combine Wilhelm with Bilinski as this improves media streaming communication experience. As stated in Bilinski, “If it is determined that the predicted route travels through an area of reduced capabilities, the streaming module 250 can determine whether to adjust the bit rate at which the media stream is encoded, e.g., in order to provide an uninterrupted media stream to the mobile computing device 300” (Col. 7 Line 65 – Col. 8 Line 10).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669