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 communication is in response to the application filed on 09/25/2024.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 8 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 165 words. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract contains references numbers which should be removed.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1,7-8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “permission/prohibition” should read “permission or prohibition”
In claim 7, line 3, “permission/prohibition” should read “permission or prohibition”
In claim 7, line 4, “permission/prohibition” should read “permission or prohibition”
In claim 8, line 8, “permission/prohibition” should read “permission or prohibition”
In claim 12, line 3, “permission/prohibition” should read “permission or prohibition”
In claim 12, line 4, “permission/prohibition” should read “permission or prohibition”
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 1-4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC (JP2021077998A, hereinafter referred to as “NEC”)-IDS in view of Ricci et al. (US 2014/0309814 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ricci”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, NEC discloses a vehicle with control section (NEC Para[0007] A control device) that, controls a state in which the communication of one of the first wireless modem or and the second wireless modem (NEC Para[0007] Two relays (i.e. modem)) is permitted and a state in which the communication of both the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem are permitted according to a position of the vehicle based on the correspondence information (NEC Para[0040] multiple PDU sessions using UE11 and UE21), wherein the correspondence information includes the positional information where a handover to switch the base station communicating with the first wireless modem or the second wireless modem occurs, (NEC Para[0040] The control of PDU sessions) wherein the control section: when the vehicle travels in a position where the communication of only one of the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem is permitted, causes the only one wireless modem to communicate with the base station and prohibits the communication of the other wireless modem with the base station (NEC Para[0046-51] A location based PDU session addition); and when the vehicle travels in a position where the handover occurs, permits both the communications of the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem and causes both the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem to communicate with the base station (NEC Para[0046-51] A PDU session handover with multiple PDU sessions based on the area).
NEC does not explicitly disclose a control system comprising: an on-board terminal mounted on a vehicle and including a first wireless modem communicating with a base station with a first wireless line and a second wireless modem communicating with the base station with a second wireless line; a server device that communicates with the on-board terminal through the base station; a storage section that stores correspondence information in which positional information of the vehicle is corresponded with permission/prohibition information that permits or prohibits communication of at least one of the first wireless modem or the second wireless modem.
However, Ricci from the same field of invention discloses a control system comprising: an on-board terminal mounted on a vehicle (Ricci Fig.1-3 Para[0287-289] A vehicle and control system) including a first wireless modem communicating with a base station with a first wireless line and a second wireless modem communicating with the base station with a second wireless line (Ricci Fig.1-3 Para[0287-289] A tranceiver for communication with access point, see Fig.4); a server device that communicates with the on-board terminal through the base station (Ricci Fig.1-3 Para[0287-289] A server); a storage section that stores correspondence information in which positional information of the vehicle is corresponded with permission/prohibition information that permits or prohibits communication of at least one of the first wireless modem or the second wireless modem (Ricci Fig.1-3 Para[0289,0336,0340-346] A various examples of location (i.e. position) based features provided to the vehicle or vehicle user. The zone (i.e. location) based communication is performed, see para[0308,0312]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify NEC to have the feature of “a control system comprising: an on-board terminal mounted on a vehicle and including a first wireless modem communicating with a base station with a first wireless line and a second wireless modem communicating with the base station with a second wireless line; a server device that communicates with the on-board terminal through the base station; a storage section that stores correspondence information in which positional information of the vehicle is corresponded with permission/prohibition information that permits or prohibits communication of at least one of the first wireless modem or the second wireless modem” as taught by Ricci. The motivation would have been vehicle ecosystem for comfort (Ricci Para[0006]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, NEC in view of Ricci discloses the vehicle and the control system as explained above for Claim 1. Ricci further discloses wherein the positional information of the vehicle is a section or an area with a range (Ricci Fig.5A Para[0056] A zone (i.e. a section)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify NEC to have the feature of “wherein the positional information of the vehicle is a section or an area with a range” as taught by Ricci. The motivation would have been vehicle ecosystem for comfort (Ricci Para[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, NEC in view of Ricci discloses the vehicle and the control system as explained above for Claim 1. Ricci further discloses wherein the storage section storing the correspondence information is mounted on the on-board terminal (Ricci Fig.4 Para[0307] A storage device).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify NEC to have the feature of “wherein the storage section storing the correspondence information is mounted on the on-board terminal” as taught by Ricci. The motivation would have been vehicle ecosystem for comfort (Ricci Para[0006]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, NEC in view of Ricci discloses the vehicle and the control system as explained above for Claim 1. Ricci further discloses wherein the storage section storing the correspondence information is mounted on the server device, and the correspondence information is transmitted from the server device to the on-board terminal through the base station (Ricci Fig.4 Para[0288-289] A storage device with store data with information (i.e. correspondence)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify NEC to have the feature of “wherein the storage section storing the correspondence information is mounted on the server device, and the correspondence information is transmitted from the server device to the on-board terminal through the base station” as taught by Ricci. The motivation would have been vehicle ecosystem for comfort (Ricci Para[0006]).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, NEC in view of Ricci discloses the vehicle and the control system as explained above for Claim 1. NEC further discloses wherein the correspondence information is information in which positional information of the vehicle, permission/prohibition information that permits or prohibits communication of the second wireless modem, and other permission/prohibition information that permits or prohibits communication of the first wireless modem are corresponded with one another (NEC Para[0018] The movement based session setup for relay unit (i.e. modem)).
Regarding claim 11, NEC in view of Ricci discloses the vehicle and the control system as explained above for Claim 1. Ricci further discloses wherein the correspondence information is information in which the positional information where a handover to switch the base station communicating with the first wireless modem or the second wireless modem occurs is corresponded with the permission information that permits communication of the second wireless modem (Ricci Para[0340-345] The zone based allowed connections).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify NEC to have the feature of “wherein the correspondence information is information in which the positional information where a handover to switch the base station communicating with the first wireless modem or the second wireless modem occurs is corresponded with the permission information that permits communication of the second wireless modem” as taught by Ricci. The motivation would have been vehicle ecosystem for comfort (Ricci Para[0006]).
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC in view of Ricci and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2003/0147364 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 5, NEC in view of Ricci discloses the vehicle and the control system as explained above for Claim 1. NEC in view of Ricci does not explicitly disclose a log storage section that stores log information of a handover of switching the base station communicating with the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem, wherein the correspondence information is updated based on the log information.
However, Watanabe from the same field of invention discloses a log storage section that stores log information of a handover of switching the base station communicating with the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem, wherein the correspondence information is updated based on the log information (Watanabe Para[0041] A relationship map is created using subnet changing information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify NEC and Ricci to have the feature of “a log storage section that stores log information of a handover of switching the base station communicating with the first wireless modem and the second wireless modem, wherein the correspondence information is updated based on the log information” as taught by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to conserve power (Watanabe Para[0006]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0334625 to Banks
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights