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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paoletti (US 2020/0217670) in view of Falla Cepeda (US 2022/0345859)
As to claim 1 Paoletti discloses a vehicle for displaying key performance indicator (KPI) data sensed by vehicles, comprising:
one or more modems of a vehicle, each configured to communicate over a wide-area network and to capture KPI data with respect to connection of the one or more modems to the wide-area network (Paragraph 106 “Wireless communication connectivity for the current location 312 can be detected from a sensor reading 324. The sensor reading 324 provides information for wireless communication connectivity for communication by the first communication unit 202, the second communication unit 226, or a combination thereof. The navigation system 100 can display the level of wireless communication connectivity based on the sensor reading 324 on the first display interface 206.”); and
a processor in communication with a display, programmed to
show a map of the KPI data along road segments for a first time period, such that for the road segments where the KPI data is available, the map overlays a presentation of the KPI data for the corresponding road segment, the presentation varying visually for different levels of connectivity (Paragraph 119-120 “Continuing with the example, once the navigation system 100, the first device 102 of FIG. 1, the second device 106 of FIG. 1, or a combination thereof determines one or more of the surrounding geographic adjacent area 404 and the connectivity area 406, the navigation system 100, the first device 102, the second device 106, or a combination thereof can request and receive the map information 322 for the connectivity area 406 that have categorizations equivalent to the low connectivity 316 or the no connectivity 318. As an example, the navigation system 100 can request and receive the map information 322 from a database, a repository, a digital library, or a combination thereof. The navigation system 100 can then use the information regarding the strength of wireless communication connectivity in the connectivity area 406 to generate the connectivity segment 304 of FIG. 3 relative to the current location 312. The navigation system 100 can display the connectivity segment 304 on the first display interface 206. The connectivity segment 304 can be represented using categorizations as discussed in FIG. 3.” Figure 3), and
show a segment key indicating the levels of connectivity (Paragraph 120 “he navigation system 100 can then use the information regarding the strength of wireless communication connectivity in the connectivity area 406 to generate the connectivity segment 304 of FIG. 3 relative to the current location 312. The navigation system 100 can display the connectivity segment 304 on the first display interface 206. The connectivity segment 304 can be represented using categorizations as discussed in FIG. 3.”).
Paoletti does not explicitly disclose send a request to a data server for the KPI data, the KPI data having been compiled per road segment and per time period from KPI data captured by modems of a plurality of vehicles
Falla Cepeda teaches send a request to a data server for the KPI data, the KPI data having been compiled per road segment and per time period from KPI data captured by modems of a plurality of vehicles (Paragraph 111 “Referring to FIG. 7A, in one embodiment, the system 100 can generate a user interface (UI) 701 (e.g., via the mapping platform 107) for a UE 111 (e.g., a mobile device, a smartphone, a client terminal, etc.) that can allow a user (e.g., a mapping service provider staff, a vehicle fleet operator staff, an end user, etc.) to see vehicle sensor data, single-path communication signal characteristics data, road-link map attribute data, filtered road-link map attribute data, single-path communication coverage information, quality of service measurement data, etc. currently and/or over time (e.g., an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, etc.) in an area presented over a map 703”)
receive the KPI data from the data server (Paragraph 56 “The backend/server 207 or the cloud can aggregate, update, and/or verify road-link map attributes from different vehicles (e.g., vehicles 103a, 103b) currently and/or previously travelling on the road link 201, to provide an aggregated link attribute indicating which road link (e.g., the road link 201) and/or which portion(s) of the road link wherein 5G signals (e.g., the 5G downlink signal(s) 203) is detectable.”);
filter the KPI data according to capabilities of the one or more modems of the vehicle to include information with respect to connections supported by the one or more modems (Paragraph 111 “Upon selection of one or more of the road-link coverage options 705, the user can access the data based on the respective option(s). For instance, the signal coverage options 705 includes a 5G option 705a, a 4G option 705b, and a no-coverage option 705c. The 5G option 705a allows the user to view 5G covered road links determined as discussed[filtered KPI data]. The 4G option 705b allows the user to view 4G covered areas determined based on known methods. The no-coverage option 705c allows the user to view areas not covered by 4G/5G.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Paoletti to include the teachings of using KPI data compiled per road segment and per time period from KPI data captured by modems of a plurality of vehicles the purpose of determining the network coverage for the vehicle along the route.
As to claim 2 Paoletti discloses a vehicle wherein the processor is further programmed to:
show the map of the KPI data along the road segments for a second time period, such that for the road segments where the KPI data is available, the map overlays an updated presentation of the KPI data for the corresponding road segment and the second time period, the updated presentation varying visually for the different levels of connectivity (Paragraph 102).
As to claim 8 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 9 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claims 1 and 2.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paoletti (US 2020/0217670) in view of Falla Cepeda (US 2022/0345859) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kakosyan (US 2023/0194279)
As to claim 3 Kakosyan teaches a vehicle wherein the processor is further programmed to filter the KPI data according to network technologies supported by the one or more modems (Paragraph 49-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Paoletti to include the teachings of filtering the KPI data with respect to connections that are supported by the modems for the purpose of showing the available coverage along the route of the network.
Claims 4-7, 10, 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paoletti (US 2020/0217670) in view of Falla Cepeda (US 2022/0345859) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kakosyan (US 2023/0194279) and Bhorkar (US 2022/0136846)
As to claim 4 Kakosyan teaches a vehicle wherein the processor is further programmed to:
construct a first route according to first route criteria and the KPI data (Kakosyan Paragraph 55);
construct a second route according to second route criteria and the KPI data, the second route criteria differing from the first route criteria (Kakosyan Paragraph 55);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Paoletti to include the teachings of constructing multiple routes for the purpose of choosing a route with the optimal network coverage.
Bhorkar teaches display, to a user, a selection between the first route using the first route criteria and the second route using the second route criteria (Paragraph 56-57);
receive a selection of the first route or the second route(Paragraph 56-57) ; and
utilize the first route or the second route as selected(Paragraph 56-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Paoletti to include the teachings of selecting different routes based on different criteria for the purpose of presenting a route with a good network quality of service (QoS).
As to claim 5 Kakosyan teaches a vehicle wherein the first and second route criteria each include one or more of: bandwidth requirements, requirements to maintain connectivity, or requirements to use a certain type of network technology, or requirement to use a certain network operator (Paragraph 49-50).
As to claim 6 Paoletti discloses a vehicle wherein the first and second route criteria is received from an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph 125-126)
As to claim 7 Paoletti discloses a vehicle wherein the processor is further programmed to: gather actual KPI data along the selected route as the vehicle travels; and send the actual KPI data to the data server for processing(Paragraph 41, 107).
As to claim 10 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights