DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwoczek, EP 3200429 A1 (hereinafter Kwoczek).
Regarding claim 1, Kwoczek discloses an information processing device that is installed in a vehicle (disclosed is a network access point that is installed in a vehicle, according to Abstract), the information processing device comprising:
a first communication module for performing communication with a cellular communication network (the vehicle’s network access point accesses a cellular network, according to page 5 lines 17-37); a second communication module for performing communication among vehicles (the vehicle’s network access point communicates with other vehicles, according to page 5 lines 17-37); and
a control unit (the vehicle’s network access point comprises a processor, such as a CPU, according to page 5 lines 39-48) that executes
receiving, from one or more other vehicles via the second communication module, communication state data relating to a state of communication with the cellular communication network (the vehicle receives, from another vehicle, information about the current and/or future state of the cellular network, according to page 5 lines 17-37), and
determining whether a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, based on a state of communication via the first communication module, and the communication state data (based on both information from the cellular network and the information about the current and/or future state of the cellular network received from the other vehicle, the vehicle detects a failure of the cellular network for a particular area, according to page 5 lines 17-37).
Regarding claim 2, Kwoczek discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit stores the communication state data received from the other vehicles in a storage unit, and when an abnormality occurs in communication via the first communication module, performs determination based on the communication state data that is stored (information on the current and/or future state of the cellular network that is passed from one vehicle to another vehicle via car-to-car communication is stored by the receiving vehicle in order to facilitate an appropriate response from said receiving vehicle to a determined cellular network issue, such as a low data rate or a failure, according to page 5 lines 17-37).
Regarding claim 3, Kwoczek discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, when an abnormality occurs in communication via the first communication module, the control unit generates the communication state data and broadcasts the communication state data via the second communication module (when the vehicle detects a failure of the cellular network, then said vehicle passes this information on to other vehicles via car-to-car communication, according to page 5 lines 17-37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwoczek as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Eglip et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0303794 (hereinafter Eglip).
Regarding claim 4, Kwoczek discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kwoczek does not expressly disclose that the control unit calculates a proportion of a plurality of the other vehicles that is currently not performing normal communication with the cellular communication network, based on the communication state data received from the other vehicles, and determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when the proportion exceeds a predetermined value.
Eglip discloses that the control unit calculates a proportion of a plurality of the other vehicles that is currently not performing normal communication with the cellular communication network, based on the communication state data received from the other vehicles (an FH (failure handling) module [“control unit”] calculates the percentage of UEs (whereby UEs may be autonomous vehicles, according to [0037]) whose profile registration requests experience failures during a time period, according to [0026]), and
determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when the proportion exceeds a predetermined value (the FH module determines that there’s a persistent failure for a 4G or 5G network based on the aforementioned percentage crossing a threshold, according to [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwoczek with Eglip such that the control unit calculates a proportion of a plurality of the other vehicles that is currently not performing normal communication with the cellular communication network, based on the communication state data received from the other vehicles, and determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when the proportion exceeds a predetermined value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate effective failure handling in a cellular network (Eglip: [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Kwoczek discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kwoczek discloses that the control unit determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when an own vehicle is in a service range of the cellular communication network (the vehicle’s network access point determines that there’s a cellular network failure based on said network access point’s access to said cellular network [“in a service range of the cellular communication network”], according to page 5 lines 17-37).
Kwoczek does not expressly disclose that the control unit calculates a proportion of a plurality of the other vehicles that is currently not performing normal communication with the cellular communication network, based on the communication state data received from the other vehicles, and determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when the proportion exceeds a predetermined value.
Eglip discloses that the control unit calculates a proportion of a plurality of the other vehicles that is currently not performing normal communication with the cellular communication network, based on the communication state data received from the other vehicles (an FH module calculates the percentage of UEs (whereby UEs may be autonomous vehicles, according to [0037]) whose profile registration requests experience failures during a time period, according to [0026]), and
determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when the proportion exceeds a predetermined value (the FH module determines that there’s a persistent failure for a 4G or 5G network based on the aforementioned percentage crossing a threshold, according to [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwoczek with Eglip such that the control unit calculates a proportion of a plurality of the other vehicles that is currently not performing normal communication with the cellular communication network, based on the communication state data received from the other vehicles, and determines that a failure is occurring on the cellular communication network, when the proportion exceeds a predetermined value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate effective failure handling in a cellular network (Eglip: [0011]-[0012]).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights