CTNF 18/881,380 CTNF 77639 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 6, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending and examined below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Matsunaga et al., US 2020/0310431 A1 . As to claim 1, Matsunaga teaches a mobile device comprising (abstract and Fig. 2): a communication unit that transmits and receives data to and from a controller through a predetermined communication path (¶ 24-28 and Figs. 1-3; e.g. remote driving apparatus 200 comprising a communication unit 206 that communicates via a network); a communication quality prediction unit that predicts a communication quality of the communication path and obtains a predicted value (¶ 34 and Fig. 4; e.g. determining a communication quality is not desirable and below a threshold value); an operation mode control unit that, on the basis of the predicted value, selects one of a plurality of operation modes, each defining an operation method for a remote operator of the controller (¶ 34 and Fig. 4; e.g. switching to the automated driving mode); and a speed control unit that controls a travel speed on the basis of the predicted value when a specific operation mode is selected from among the plurality of operation modes (¶ 34 and Fig. 4; e.g. speed control under the automated driving mode to avoid collision) . As to claim 2, Matsunaga teaches when the predicted value does not meet a required quality that is a communication quality required for a current speed, the speed control unit controls the travel speed to a speed that is not lower than a predetermined minimum travel speed and that meets the required quality (¶ 34-39 and Fig. 4). As to claim 4, Matsunaga teaches wherein a required quality that is a required communication quality is associated with each of the plurality of operation modes, and the operation mode control unit selects, from the plurality of operation modes, an operation mode in which the predicted value meets the required quality (¶ 34-39 and Fig. 4). As to claim 5, Matsunaga teaches the communication path includes an uplink that is a path from the controller to the mobile device, and a downlink that is a path from the mobile device to the controller (¶ 25-26 and Figs. 1-3; e.g. communication data is transmitted between a vehicle to the remote drive apparatus 200). Claim 7 is rejected based on the same rationale applied to claim 1 above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al., US 2020/0310431 A1 in view of Onodera et al., US 2020/0309553 A1 . As to claim 3, Matsunaga teaches a mobile device configured to control a vehicle’s operation mode based on communication quality as discussed with respect to claims 1-2 above. Matsunaga does not specifically teach the mobile device further comprising a required quality table in which a required quality is associated with each of speeds, wherein the speed control unit obtains the required quality from the required quality table. However, Onodera teaches this subject matter (¶ 35, 38, 48 and Figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a required quality table as taught by Onodera into the mobile device of Matsunaga in order to improve control the vehicle’s operation. As to claim 6, Matsunaga in view of Onodera further teaches the communication quality includes an average throughput (Onodera: ¶ 35; see claim 3 above for motivation to combine Matsunaga and Onodera’s teaching). Relevant Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pfadler et al. (US 2021/0377707 A1) discloses vehicle and network component control a communication link used for tele-operating a vehicle. Pfadler et al. (US 2022/0159075 A1) discloses invoking a tele-operated driving session. Jornod et al. (US 2020/0077278 A1) discloses predicting a quality of service for a communication between at least two moving communication partner. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows: (571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”) (571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications) /MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 May 28, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/881,380 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/881,380 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/881,380 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/881,380 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/881,380 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights