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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024, 11/06/2024, and 07/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application CN202210534627, filed on 05/17/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II).
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 1-3, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski et al. [US20200107212, now Zielinski], with Kentley-Klay et al. [US10446037,now Kentley].
Claim 1
Zielinski discloses a remote driving control method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising: obtaining network quality prediction information, the network quality prediction information being obtained by predicting network quality of an electronic communication network between a remotely driven vehicle and a remote driving server within a target time period, and the network quality prediction information comprising a predicted network parameter corresponding to each time point within the target time period [see at least Zielinski, abstract (“The present disclosure concerns a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device. QoS prediction may be necessary when it comes to the case that a user wants to use an application where a certain type of QoS is a presumption. “); ¶ 0003 (“or the scenario of vehicles equipped with wireless communication modules that provide connectivity to public communication networks but also provide a direct communication capability for exchanging information among the road participants, wireless communication offers the opportunity to implement a wide range of applications. A lot of research concerns the fields of cooperative and autonomous driving. Direct communication between vehicles is often referred to be vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V). Also possible is communication from and to a vehicle with infrastructure communication stations such as a roadside unit RSU. Such type of communication is often referred to be vehicle-to-everything communication (V2X).”); 0015 (Vehicle to Vehicle communication); Thus, network quality control prediction information being gathered and used for calculations; ¶ 0023 (more on V2V and V2X communication)];
determining, from the target time period according to the predicted network parameter corresponding to each time point within the target time period and a current network parameter between the remotely driven vehicle and the remote driving server, a target time point at which the predicted network quality changes [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027 (“ In EP1324628B1 a solution is described which is basically dedicated to an adaptive QoS management unit running on mobile nodes (MNs) targeted to support adaptive real-time applications to dynamically adapt to a time-varying node connectivity and different radio link characteristics. It supports different access technologies in dynamic wireless Internet Protocol (IP) networks by giving services the possibility to pre-allocate, reserve, monitor and adapt different QoS-related parameters.”); 0083 (V2V and V2X communications in calculations); 0085 and 0090 (indicated time as a factor in the calculations of Network Quality); 0089 (further discloses the use of QoS and communication service prediction); and
adjusting a driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle based on a predicted network parameter corresponding to the target time point, to control the remotely driven vehicle, through the electronic communication network, according to an adjusted driving control policy [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0011 (“A slightly different definition of levels is known from the Society of Automotive Engineers SAE for a pan-European cooperation on this matter. This could also be used instead of the above given definition. Future cooperative driving applications are envisioned to significantly improve efficiency and comfort of automated driving. Increase in cooperation between vehicles pose specific requirements on communication system and the way messages are exchanged among cooperating vehicles.”) thus control a vehicle and control policy); 0089 (“In summary, the prediction function block 1610 may perform the prediction function on different levels, one may be the link level where it will be determined which communication link provides which quality of service level. Second, the prediction function block 1610 may perform the prediction function on the system level, where resource blocks are pre-allocated and where it will be determined what the estimated QoS parameter values such as block error rate/packet error rate, end to end latency, throughput, etc.”)].
Zielinski does disclose some of the concepts included in this limitation but Kentley more specifically teaches control of the remotely driven vehicle [see at least Kentley, Col. 6, lines 43-59 (“control a predominate number of vehicle functions, including driving control (e.g., propulsion, steering, etc.) and active sources 136 of light, among other functions.”); Col. 16 line 23 – Col. 17, line 3 (“diagram 700 depicts an autonomous vehicle service platform 701 including a reference data generator 705, a vehicle data controller 702, an autonomous vehicle fleet manager 703, a teleoperator manager 707, a simulator 740, and a policy manager 742.”); Col. 39, lines 44-61 (concerns control of an AV).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Note this type of QoS for communication and determining policy and control of vehicles is used in many different areas but is basically doing the same evaluations. Examples: Gaming, drones, robots, etc..
Claim 2
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Zielinski further discloses the adjusting a driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle based on a predicted network parameter corresponding to the target time point comprises: determining, based on the predicted network parameter corresponding to the target time point, predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point [see at least Zielinski, Abstract; ¶ 0002 (“The disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for predicting a quality of service for the communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device. The disclosure also discloses a communication service prediction server and a corresponding computer program.”)];
determining a plurality of operating states configured for the remotely driven vehicle and a network quality range to which each of the plurality of operating states is adapted [see at least Zielinski 0093 (updating and prediction servers, requests, etc.)];
selecting a target operating state from the plurality of operating states according to the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point and the network quality range to which each operating state is adapted, a network quality range to which the target operating state is adapted comprising the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027]; and
adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle according to the target operating state [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027].
Zielinski only mentions but does not specifically disclose but Kentley teaches adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle according to the target operating state [see at least Kentley, Col. 16 line 23 – Col. 17, line 3 (driving control policy of the vehicle)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 3
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Zielinski further discloses wherein the selecting a target operating state from the plurality of operating states according to the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point and the network quality range to which each operating state is adapted comprises: determining, according to the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point and the current network parameter, a network quality change direction corresponding to the target time point [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0070 (“Fig. 1; communication technology and its use); 0091 (“Fig. 5 shows the message format of the QoS prediction request message…] ;
determining, based on a correspondence between a network quality change direction and a state selection policy, a state selection policy corresponding to the network quality change direction corresponding to the target time point as a target state selection policy [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0070; 0091]; and
selecting the target operating state from the plurality of operating states according to the target state selection policy based on the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point and the network quality range to which each operating state is adapted [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0070; 0091].
Zielinski only mentions but does not specifically but Kentley teaches adjusting the driving control [see at least Kentley, Col. 16 line 23 – Col. 17, line 3 (driving control policy of the vehicle)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 8
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Zielinski further discloses wherein the plurality of operating states comprise: a first state, a second state, and a third state, a lower limit of a network quality range to which the first state is adapted being greater than or equal to an upper limit of a network quality range to which the second state is adapted, and a lower limit of the network quality range to which the second state is adapted being greater than or equal to an upper limit of a network quality range to which the third state is adapted; the first state being configured for indicating that a vehicle control parameter for the remotely driven vehicle is allowed to adjust to a threshold, the second state being configured for indicating that the vehicle control parameter for the remotely driven vehicle is allowed to adjust to a limit, the limit being less than the threshold, and the third state being configured for indicating to control the remotely driven vehicle to park [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027; 0095 (discloses different types of software, hardware, firmware, special purpose processors to calculate, numerous states and conditions effectively)].
Zielinski only mentions but does not specifically disclose but Kentley teaches control of the vehicle [see at least Kentley, Col. 16 line 23 – Col. 17, line 3 (driving control policy of the vehicle)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 9
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 8.
Zielinski further discloses wherein the adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle according to the target operating state comprises: if the target operating state is the first state or the second state, outputting prompt information about the target operating state, to prompt a remote operation object to adjust the vehicle control parameter of the remotely driven vehicle according to indication of the target operating state; and obtaining an adjusted vehicle control parameter, and adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle control parameter [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027; 0070 (“Fig. 1; communication technology and its use); 0093 (“FIG. 7 shows the message format for the QoS prediction response message QPRSP.”)].
Zielinski only mentions but does not specifically disclose but Kentley teaches control of the vehicle [see at least Kentley, Col. 16 line 23 – Col. 17, line 3 (driving control policy of the vehicle)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 10
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 8.
Zielinski further discloses wherein the adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle according to the target operating state comprises: if the target operating state is the third state, calculating an interval duration between the target time point and a current time point, the current time point being a time point corresponding to the current network parameter; determining a target duration required to control the remotely driven vehicle for safe parking, the safe parking meaning that the remotely driven vehicle travels from a current location at the current time point to a road safety area and parks in the road safety area; and if the interval duration is greater than or equal to the target duration, adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle to a safe parking policy, the safe parking policy being configured for indicating the remotely driven vehicle to travel to the road safety area for parking; or if the interval duration is less than the target duration, adjusting the driving control policy of the remotely driven vehicle to an emergency parking policy, the emergency parking policy being configured for indicating the remotely driven vehicle to park at the current location [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0004 (“Therein, automatic parking, tracking function, general longitudinal guidance, acceleration, deceleration, etc. are taken over by the assistance systems”); 0025; 0070; 0093].
Zielinski only mentions but does not specifically disclose but Kentley teaches control of the vehicle [see at least Kentley, Col. 16 line 23 – Col. 17, line 3 (driving control policy of the vehicle); Col. 26 lines 13-Line 34 (“The subset of autonomous vehicles being configured to either park at specific geographic locations and each serve as a static communication relay”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 11
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Zielinski further discloses obtaining network quality prediction information comprises: obtaining status information, the status information comprising: a network parameter obtained by performing network collection at each location in a target area in which the remotely driven vehicle is located and a vehicle parameter of the remotely driven vehicle, the vehicle parameter comprising a travel status parameter [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027; 0083 (“QoS parameters”); 0087 (“prediction function block”) which has the same functions as listed in this limitation.];
obtaining, from the status information, a network parameter corresponding to each predicted location, and predicting network quality at each predicted location at a corresponding time point according to the network parameter corresponding to each predicted location, to obtain the network quality prediction information [see at least Zielinski, ¶0011; 0067 (“The Quality of Service (QoS) of IP services can be adjusted according to the requirements of each service (e.g. bitrate, lags, Bit Error Rate . . . ). Its signaling is communicated through external services platforms (e.g. IMS) transparently to the EPC Core Network.”); 0089 (“With service quality it is meant the quality of the different supported communication types such as V2V, V2X, or V2N. Alternatively, it could be the quality for certain services such as watching TV or video, surfing on Internet, listening to music, online gaming, performing telephone or videophone calls, etc. The customer then has a choice if that is acceptable for him. If the service quality is not good enough, he may want to select another route or he could plan a different activity.”)].
Zielinski does not specifically teach but Kentley does teach predicting, in a spatial dimension according to the travel status parameter of the remotely driven vehicle, a location of the remotely driven vehicle in the target area upon arrival at each time point within the target time period, to obtain a plurality of predicted locations, one predicted location being corresponding to one time point [see at least Kentley, Col. 26, lines 54 – 67 (discussing Fig 21 showing data retrieval); Col. 31, line 57 – Col. 32, line 14 (indicated that Fig. 29 is a flow chart to “simulate various aspects of an autonomous vehicle,”)].
Kentley also teaches obtaining network quality prediction information comprises: obtaining status information, the status information comprising: a network parameter obtained by performing network collection at each location in a target area in which the remotely driven vehicle is located and a vehicle parameter of the remotely driven vehicle, the vehicle parameter comprising a travel status parameter point [see at least Kentley, Abstract; Col. 5, line 43 – Col. 6, line 11 (shows geographical location of the vehicle using an “autonomous vehicle service platform” and doing all the other features of this limitation); Col. 26, lines 54 – 67 (discussing Fig 21 showing pose data)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 12
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 11.
Zielinski further discloses the status information further comprises: a vehicle parameter of another vehicle other than the remotely driven vehicle in the target area and an environmental parameter of the target area [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0003; 0027; 0083]; and
the predicting network quality at each predicted location at a corresponding time point according to the network parameter corresponding to each predicted location [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 27] comprises:
for any predicted location, predicting network quality at the any predicted location at a corresponding time point according to a vehicle parameter of each vehicle, the environmental parameter, and a network parameter corresponding to the any predicted location that are in the status information [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0023 (shows prediction of quality of service); 0027].
Kentley supports the status information further comprises: a vehicle parameter of another vehicle other than the remotely driven vehicle in the target area and an environmental parameter of the target area [see at least Kentley, Col. 2, lines 25-37 (overall view of status information)]
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is the device claim has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
For Clarity:
Kielinski discloses a Processor [see at least Kielinski, ¶ 0060] and storage [see at least Kielinski, ¶ 0060]
Claim 14
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 15
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17
Claim 17 is the non-transitory storage medium for Claim 1 and has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 18
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 19
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claims 4-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski et al. [US20200107212, now Zielinski], with Kentley-Klay et al. [US10446037,now Kentley], further with Fox, [CN111133412, now Fox] (version with paragraph numbers is attached).
Claim 4
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Zielinski further discloses wherein the plurality of operating states form a state sequence, a lower limit of a network quality range to which an operating state in the state sequence is adapted being greater than or equal to an upper limit of a network quality range to which a next operating state is adapted [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0019 – 0022 (AQoSA principle is three-fold…The application informs the network about its communication requirements and updates these requirements whenever they change.”)];
the network quality change direction corresponding to the target time point is a network quality rise direction [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0019 – 0022]; and
the selecting the target operating state from the plurality of operating states according to the target state selection policy based on the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point and the network quality range to which each operating state is adapted [see at least Zielinski, Abstract; ¶ 0027 (which refers to another patent that “dedicated to an adaptive QoS management unit”); 0095 (indicates operating system)] comprises:
sequentially polling each operating state in the state sequence in an order the same as a sort order corresponding to the state sequence [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0050 (refers to prediction which is calculated in a similar manner as polling); and
if the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point is greater than a lower limit of a network quality range to which a current polled operating state is adapted, selecting the current polled operating state as the target operating state, and ending the polling; or if the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point is not greater than the lower limit of the network quality range to which the current polled operating state is adapted, continuing to poll the state sequence [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027; 0080 (indicates standards for communication and use of components for that communication)].
Neither Zielinski or Kentley specifically disclose/teach but Fox teaches polling [see at least Fox, ¶ 192 (“disclosed, several ECU operation data includes an indication of the last known polling (last-knownpoll) of data”); 264 (“coordinator 114 may be configured to the ECU electronic polling (electronically ") in the vehicle 104, to determine whether the correct the ECU in response to polling. one or more ECU errors or failure in one or more ECU coordinator 114 then may identify associated with the vehicle 104-b”; 265 (“configured as electronic polling of ECU in a vehicle to determine whether the correct the ECU in response to polling”)].
Fox also teaches wherein the plurality of operating states form a state sequence, a lower limit of a network quality range to which an operating state in the state sequence is adapted being greater than or equal to an upper limit of a network quality range to which a next operating state is adapted [see at least Fox, abstract (“generating packet for updating software updating in a vehicle electronic control unit (ECU)… generates a representation of differences between the plurality of attributes and the corresponding plurality of attributes in the comparison”); 3421 (general description of the patent)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley, further with the use of polling found in Fax. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 5
Zielinski, Kentley and Fox disclose/teach the method of Claim 4.
Zielinski further discloses the method further comprises: when the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point is not greater than the lower limit of the network quality range to which the current polled operating state is adapted, triggering the operation of continuing to poll the state sequence if at least two operating states in the state sequence are not polled; or selecting the last operating state as the target operating state, and ending the polling [see at least Zielinski, Abstract; 0027; 0045-0046 (describes prediction process); 0080 (more on operation of communication)].
Neither Zielinski or Kentley specifically disclose/teach but Fox teaches polling [see at least Fox, ¶ 192; 264; 265 (all ¶ indicate the concept of “polling”).
Fox also teaches the concept of these limitations [see at least ¶332 (stopping the polling)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley, further with the use of polling found in Fax. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 6
Zielinski and Kentley disclose/teach the method of Claim 3.
Zielinski further discloses the plurality of operating states form a state sequence, a lower limit of a network quality range to which an operating state in the state sequence is adapted being greater than or equal to an upper limit of a network quality range to which a next operating state is adapted [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0018 (“Agile Quality of Service Adaptation (AQoSA) “)];
the network quality change direction corresponding to the target time point is a network quality fall direction [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0019 (network predicts”); 0050 (“prediction block”)]; and
the selecting the target operating state from the plurality of operating states according to the target state selection policy based on the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point and the network quality range to which each operating state is adapted [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027 (network quality); 0050; 0070 (communication); 0095 (general description of concepts)] comprises:
sequentially polling each operating state in the state sequence in an order opposite to a sort order corresponding to the state sequence; and if the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point is less than an upper limit of a network quality range to which a current polled operating state is adapted, selecting the current polled operating state as the target operating state, and ending the polling; or if the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point is not less than the upper limit of the network quality range to which the current polled operating state is adapted, continuing to poll the state sequence [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027; 0085 and 0090 (time); 0095].
Neither Zielinski or Kentley specifically disclose/teach but Fox teaches polling [see at least Fox, ¶ 192; 264; 265 (all ¶ indicate the concept of “polling”).
Fox also teaches operating state in the state sequence [see at least Fox, ¶ 192; 242 (ECU management and updating); 342];
predicted network quality corresponding to the target time [see at least Fox, ¶ 332 (“real-time operation”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley, further with the use of polling found in Fax. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 7
Zielinski, Kentley and Fox disclose/teach the method of Claim 6.
Zielinski further discloses the method further comprises: when the predicted network quality corresponding to the target time point is not less than the upper limit of the network quality range to which the current polled operating state is adapted, continuing to poll the state sequence if at least two operating states in the state sequence are not polled; or selecting a first operating state that has not been polled as the target operating state, and ending the polling [see at least Zielinski, ¶ 0027; 0095].
Neither Zielinski or Kentley specifically disclose/teach but Fox teaches polling [see at least Fox, ¶ 192; 264; 265 (all ¶ indicate the concept of “polling”).
Fox also mentions other parts of the limitation [see at least Fox, ¶ 332].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “ a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device [abstract]” of Zielinski, with the vehicle control technology described in Kentley, further with the use of polling found in Fax. Making analyzing and determining quality of service in communication for vehicle control in an effective [Kentley, Col. 54, line19], efficient [Zielinski, ¶ 0023] and safer environment [Zielinski, ¶ 0012] for any vehicle.
Claim 16
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 4, therefore claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pfadler et al. [CN 113747394 ]
Embodiments provide a method for controlling a communication link for remotely operating a vehicle, a computer program, a device, a vehicle and a network component. A method (10) for controlling a communication link for remotely operating a vehicle (200) comprises: Information relating to the predicted quality of service pQoS of the communication link between the vehicle (200) and the remote operator of the vehicle (200) is obtained (12). The method further comprises: selecting (14) the operation mode for remotely controlling the operation vehicle (200) from the operation mode group based on the information related to the pQoS; the operation mode group comprises two or more operation modes which are different in the speed limit of the vehicle (200).[Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US 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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights