CTNF 19/038,101 CTNF 96720 DETAILED ACTION This non-final action is in reply to the application filed 27 January 2025. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA Priority Claims 1-20 are pending, having a filing dated of 27 January 2025, claiming the benefit as a continuation of PCT/JP2023/022532, filed 19 June 2023, and foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application Number JP 2022-139085, filed 01 September 2022. 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 28 March 2025, and 13 November 2025, comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of the 1449 forms are enclosed herewith. Drawings The drawings, filed 27 January 2025, are accepted by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: “ the determiner determines ” (claims 2, 3, 5, and 6) <see specification at [0039] disclosing that determiner 150 is a device that executes various determinations>. Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Although the specification at [0039] discloses that “the determiner” is a device, it does not disclose what the device is. Thus see the 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection below. If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “t he determiner determines ” (in claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 ) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although the specification at [0039] discloses that “the determiner” is a device, it does not disclose what the device is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 non-obviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0198839 to Santamala et al. (hereafter Santamala ) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0003407 to Sasaki et al. (hereafter Sasaki ) . As per claim 1 , Santamala discloses [a]n information processing apparatus (see at least Santamala, Abstract) that configured to be mounted on a vehicle (see at least Santamala, [0022] disclosing that a variety of processing resources may be available to the AV 100. For example, the AV 100 may comprise certain local and/or on-board control and/or processing systems 104, which may in certain instances be referred to herein as local and/or in-vehicle processing resources and/or systems and/or derivatives of the same. The AV 100 may further be capable of communicating with remote processing and/or computing systems and/or resources 108, 110 that may include, for example and without limitation, edge cloud processing resources 108 and/or cloud processing resources 110), the information processing apparatus comprising: a processor (see at least Santamala, [0078] disclosing that the systems and methods disclosed herein are not limited to any specific computer, device, service, or other apparatus architecture and may be implemented by a suitable combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware. Software implementations may include one or more computer programs comprising executable code/instructions that, when executed by a processor, may cause the processor to perform a method defined at least in part by the executable instructions); and a memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (see at least Santamala, [0078]; [0079] disclosing that Software embodiments may be implemented as a computer program product that comprises a non-transitory storage medium configured to store computer programs and instructions, that when executed by a processor, are configured to cause the processor to perform a method according to the instructions. In certain embodiments, the non-transitory storage medium may take any form capable of storing processor-readable instructions on a non-transitory storage medium. A non-transitory storage medium may be embodied by a compact disk, digital-video disk, an optical storage medium, flash memory, integrated circuits, or any other non-transitory digital processing apparatus memory device) comprising: performing communication with an external apparatus via a mobile communication network (see at least Santamala, [0022] disclosing that the AV 100 may further be capable of communicating with remote processing and/or computing systems and/or resources 108, 110 that may include, for example and without limitation, edge cloud processing resources 108 and/or cloud processing resources 110; [0023] disclosing that edge cloud processing resources 108 may be deployed at the and/or near an edge of a wireless network in communication with an AV 100, and may be associated with relatively shorter network latency than cloud processing resources 110); performing determination of a strength of a received radio wave based on a current position of the vehicle (see at least Santamala, [0034] disclosing that one or more of the one or more of the vehicle control and/or processing systems 104, the edge cloud processing resources 108, and/or cloud processing resources 110 and/or associated components may exchange messages relating to associated processing availability, processing latency, processing queues, network latency, bandwidth, and/or the like, which may be used in connection with dynamic allocation and/or assignment of tasks between the vehicle system 104 and/or remote processing resources 108, 110; [0035] disclosing that a task allocation service 114a associated with an AV 100 may interact with a task allocation service 114b associated with edge cloud processing resources 108 to determine processing availability, latency and/or queues, network latency, bandwidth, and/or the like associated with the vehicle control and/or processing systems 104 and/or the edge cloud processing resources 108. The task allocation services 114a and/or 114b may further assess the determined latencies, processing queues, communication channel bandwidths, and/or the like relative to one or more parameters and/or variables associated with one or more processing tasks. Based on the assessment, processing task(s) and/or aspects thereof may be allocated between vehicle control and/or processing systems 104 and/or the edge cloud processing resources 108; [0036]; [0037]; [0038] disclosing that processing task parameters and/or variables may depend, at least in part, on an operational context associated with the task and/or associated AV 100. Operating contexts that may influence processing task allocation may comprise, for example and without limitation, vehicle speed, vehicle location, vehicle operating environment, weather conditions, proximity to other vehicles and/or objects, the density and/or relative speeds of other vehicles and/or objects) and ... (1) ..., ... (2) ... ; and performing control according to at least one of a behavior of the vehicle and/or the communication of the vehicle based on a result of the determination (see at least Santamala, [0049]; [0067] disclosing that the one or more thresholds may be dynamic based on contextual information relating to the operation of the AV and/or an associated operational environment. For example, increased vehicle speed may require faster processing of sensor information to safely determine vehicle control actions, and thus lower network latency thresholds may be implemented to determine whether to allocate tasks to edge cloud processing when the vehicle is above certain threshold speeds; [0068] disclosing that at lower vehicle speeds, fast processing of sensor data may be less important from a safety perspective due to increased control action time, and thus higher network latency thresholds may be implemented to determine whether to allocate tasks to edge cloud processing when the vehicle is above certain threshold speeds. Similarly, less trafficked and/or less operationally complex areas such as a rural road may allow for slower processing of sensor information to safely determine vehicle control actions without compromising safety due to increased reaction time, and thus higher network latency thresholds may be implemented to determine whether to allocate tasks to edge cloud processing when the is operating in such a context). But, the difference between Santamala and the claimed invention is that Santamala does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sasaki, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: (1) performing determination of a strength of a received radio wave based on ... a radio wave intensity map, the received radio wave being a radio wave received by the vehicle (see at least Sasaki, [0031] disclosing that each of the in-vehicle apparatuses 2 sends positional information and a measured result of 5G field strength at the position to the center server 1 at predetermined intervals. The center server 1 holds the positional information and measured result of 5G field strength received from each in-vehicle apparatus 2 as big data and generates map information about a distribution of 5G field strength from the big data. Hereinafter, the map information about a distribution of field strength is referred to as field strength map. Not limited to this configuration, the center server 1 may acquire a field strength map on 5G from a communication carrier in advance; [0032] disclosing that in response to a request from the in-vehicle apparatus 2, the center server 1 generates routes having good 5G communication quality based on the field strength map and provides the routes to the in-vehicle apparatus 2. The in-vehicle apparatus 2 sends a request for providing routes having good 5G communication quality to the center server 1, for example, when a route is set at the time of starting to move to a destination, or when sending or receiving a massive amount of data is started ), and (2) the radio wave intensity map indicating a radio wave intensity in the mobile communication network (see at least Sasaki, [0030]; [0031]; [0032]; [0058] disclosing that the center server 1 includes a sending and receiving unit 11, a control unit 12, a field strength map database (DB) 13, and a map information DB 14 as functional components. These functional components are implemented, for example, when the CPU 101 of the center server 1 runs the control program for the center server 1 of the route suggestion system 100, stored in the external storage 1; [0072]) ... . Santamala and Sasaki are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Sasaki relates to an information processing apparatus that based on field strength map information acquires a route from the departure place or the current position to the destination, were the communication quality satisfies a predetermined criterion (see at least Sasaki, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Santamala, to provide the benefit of (1) performing determination of a strength of a received radio wave based on a radio wave intensity map, were (2) the radio wave intensity map indicates a radio wave intensity in the mobile communication network, as disclosed in Sasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. As per claim 3 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: in a case where the determiner determines that an intensity of the received radio wave in a travel route of the vehicle is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0019] disclosing that examples of the predetermined criterion include any one or combination of a condition that the number of sections in which a field strength in the first communication system is lower than a first threshold is less than a predetermined number, a condition that the total distance of the sections in which the field strength in the first communication system is lower than the first threshold is less than a predetermined value, and a condition that the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the field strength in the first communication system is lower than the first threshold to the total distance of all the sections in a route is lower than a predetermined value; [0026]; [0063] disclosing that the control unit 12 sorts the plurality of acquired routes by consulting the field strength map DB 13 in accordance with the predetermined condition. A sorting condition is, for example, any one or combination of ascending order of the number of sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than a first threshold, ascending order of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than the first threshold, ascending order of the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than the first threshold, descending order of the number of sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to a second threshold, descending order of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to the second threshold, descending order of the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to the second threshold; [0064]), causing the vehicle to avoid the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold (see at least Sasaki, [0026] disclosing that examples of the good communication quality include a condition that a field strength is stably higher than or equal to a predetermined threshold and a condition that a communication speed is stably higher than or equal to a predetermined threshold. The routes having good communication quality are routes that satisfy a predetermined criterion. Examples of the predetermined criterion include a condition that the number of sections in which a field strength is lower than a predetermined threshold is less than a predetermined number, a condition that the total distance of the sections in which the field strength is lower than the predetermined threshold is less than a predetermined value, and a condition that the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the field strength is lower than the predetermined threshold to the total distance of all the sections in a route is lower than a predetermined value), and causing the vehicle to travel along a travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold (see at least Sasaki, [0026] ). As per claim 4 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitation: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: causing the vehicle to travel along, among a plurality of travel routes in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold, a travel route in which a travel time of the vehicle is shortest (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0062] disclosing that A method of acquiring routes having good 5G communication quality is, for example, as follows. The control unit 12 initially acquires a predetermined number of routes that run from the current position or departure place of the in-vehicle apparatus 2 to the destination and that satisfy a predetermined condition by using the map information DB 14. The predetermined condition is, for example, any one or combination of a condition that a route is shorter than a distance obtained by adding +α to a distance of the shortest route, a condition that a route requires a time shorter than a time obtained by adding +α to a time of the fastest route). As per claim 5 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: in a case where the determiner determines that an intensity of the received radio wave in a travel route of the vehicle is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0019]; [0026]; [0063]; [0064]), causing the vehicle to travel along, among a plurality of travel routes in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold, a travel route in which a travel time of the vehicle is shortest (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0062]). As per claim 13 , similar to claim 1, Santamala discloses [a]n information processing method (see at least Santamala, Abstract) that uses a mobile communication network between an information processing apparatus (see at least Santamala, [0022]; [0023]) configured to be mounted on a vehicle and an external apparatus (see at least Santamala, [0022]), the information processing method comprising: performing determination of a strength of a received radio wave based on a current position of the vehicle (see at least Santamala, [0034]-[0038]; ) and ... (1) ... , ... (2) ... ; and performing control according to at least one of a behavior of the vehicle and/or the communication of the vehicle based on a result of the determination (see at least Santamala, [0049]; [0067]; [0068] ). But, the difference between Santamala and the claimed invention is that Santamala does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sasaki, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: (1) performing determination of a strength of a received radio wave based on ... a radio wave intensity map (see at least Sasaki, [0031]; [0032]), (2) the received radio wave being a radio wave received by the vehicle, the radio wave intensity map indicating a radio wave intensity in the mobile communication network (see at least Sasaki, [0030]-[0032]; [0072]) ... . Santamala and Sasaki are analogous art to claim 13 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Sasaki relates to an information processing apparatus that based on field strength map information acquires a route from the departure place or the current position to the destination, were the communication quality satisfies a predetermined criterion (see at least Sasaki, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Santamala, to provide the benefit of (1) performing determination of a strength of a received radio wave based on a radio wave intensity map, were (2) the radio wave intensity map indicates a radio wave intensity in the mobile communication network, as disclosed in Sasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. As per claim 15 , similar to claim 3, the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: wherein in a case where it is determined that an intensity of the received radio wave in a travel route of the vehicle is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0019]; [0026]; [0063]; [0064]), causing the vehicle to avoid the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold (see at least Sasaki, [0026]), and causing the vehicle to travel along a travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold (see at least Sasaki, [0026]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala and Sasaki as applied to claim s 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0320334 to Djuknic . As per claim 2 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitation: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: in a case where the determiner determines that an intensity of the received radio wave in a travel route of the vehicle is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0063] disclosing that the control unit 12 sorts the plurality of acquired routes by consulting the field strength map DB 13 in accordance with the predetermined condition. A sorting condition is, for example, any one or combination of ascending order of the number of sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than a first threshold, ascending order of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than the first threshold, ascending order of the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than the first threshold, descending order of the number of sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to a second threshold, descending order of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to the second threshold, descending order of the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to the second threshold; [0064]) ... . But, the difference between the combination of Santamala and Sasaki and the claimed invention is that neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Djuknic, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: causing the vehicle to decelerate while the vehicle travels along the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold (see at least Djuknic, [0012] disclosing that data collection and processing system 16 can, in some embodiments, direct movement of vehicle 14 to produce a higher or lower spatial resolution of measured wireless parameters based on the sensed character of local wireless parameters, e.g. commanding greater resolution in areas of higher interest (where parameters are highly variable as a function of spatial position, or where parameters fall within or deviate from expected values), or lower resolution in areas of less variation, to hasten surveying. For example, test station 12 can, in some embodiments, direct vehicle 14 to traverse an area more slowly (for a more granular evaluation of wireless parameters) if received signal strength or packet loss within that area fall above or below threshold values, respectively ). Santamala, Sasaki and Djuknic are analogous art to claim 2 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Sasaki relates to an information processing apparatus that based on field strength map information acquires a route from the departure place or the current position to the destination, were the communication quality satisfies a predetermined criterion (see at least Sasaki, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of causing the vehicle to decelerate while the vehicle travels along the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold, as disclosed in Djuknic, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. As per claim 14 , similar to claim 2, the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitation: wherein in a case where it is determined that an intensity of the received radio wave in a travel route of the vehicle is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0063]; [0064]) ... . . But, the difference between the combination of Santamala and Sasaki and the claimed invention is that neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Djuknic, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: causing the vehicle to decelerate while the vehicle travels along the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold (see at least Djuknic, [0012]). Santamala, Sasaki and Djuknic are analogous art to claim 14 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Sasaki relates to an information processing apparatus that based on field strength map information acquires a route from the departure place or the current position to the destination, were the communication quality satisfies a predetermined criterion (see at least Sasaki, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of causing the vehicle to decelerate while the vehicle travels along the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold, as disclosed in Djuknic, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0377707 to Pfadler et al. (hereafter Pfadler) . As per claim 6 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all ow the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitation: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: in a case where the determiner determines that an intensity of the received radio wave in a travel route of the vehicle is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0019]; [0026]; [0063]; [0064]) ... . But, the difference between the combination of Santamala and Sasaki and the claimed invention is that neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Pfadler, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: changing at least one of a frame rate and/or a compression rate according to the communication while the vehicle travels along the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold (see at least Pfadler, [0029] disclosing that method may further comprise triggering a safety stop of the transportation vehicle in case the current QoS falls below a safety threshold. Disclosed embodiments prioritize safety by triggering a safety stop in case of communication link impairments; [0053] disclosing that to determine a speed limit in an exemplary embodiment for a tele-operated transportation vehicle 200, it may be critical to predict the QoS in the communication network; [0054] disclosing that to operate remote control, data are exchanged through a cellular network. The quality of the uplink (perception data) and downlink (control data) connection, QoS, has a dramatic impact on the quality of application (QoA). The most important key performance indicators (KPIs) for tele-operations are latency and data rate of the communication network, e.g., a 4G network. Therefore, different ToD modes with distinct communication requirements are possible, i.e., latency and data rate. For each mode a certain speed limit is given. It is possible to have modes with lower data rate consumption, e.g., using a reduction of the frame rate of the video upstream. The trade-off of such modes is that the speed of the transportation vehicle needs to be reduced. It is also possible to increase the maximum value requirement for the latency, i.e., higher latency is then tolerable by switching from direct control to indirect control in the DL ; [0062]). Santamala, Sasaki and Pfadler are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Pfadler relates to a method, a computer program, an apparatus, a transportation vehicle, and a network component for controlling a communication link used for tele-operating a transportation vehicle (see Pfadler, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of changing at least one of a frame rate according to the communication while the vehicle travels along the travel route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is less than the threshold, as disclosed in Pfadler, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala and Sasaki as applied to claim s 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0294592 to Noguchi et al. (hereafter Noguchi) . As per claim 7 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitation: ... the route being a route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0019]; [0026]; [0063]; [0064]). But, neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following laminarizations taught in Noguchi: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: in a case where an occupant of the vehicle gets off at an entrance of a parking facility including a plurality of parking spaces (see at least Noguchi, Fig. 2, [0051] disclosing that as shown in FIG. 2, the parking lot PA is an automatic valet parking type parking lot attached to the visiting facility to be visited by the user and is managed by the parking lot management device 400. The parking lot PA includes a plurality of parking spaces PS where a vehicle (for example, the vehicle M) can be parked, and a platform area PL provided in front of the plurality of parking spaces PS), and thereafter, the vehicle travels from the entrance to, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space, which is a predetermined vacant parking space, by automatic driving and is parked in the vacant parking space (see at least Noguchi, [0064] disclosing that the rewriting processing unit 621 first inquires whether the vehicle M is parked in the parking lot PA with respect to other devices such as the navigation device 40 and the automatic driving control device 100 that can specify the position of the vehicle M; [0073] disclosing that he parking lot PA is an automatic valet parking type parking lot, and the parking lot management device 400 may change the parking position (that is, the parking space PS) of a vehicle parked in the parking lot PA as appropriate from the viewpoint of effectively utilizing the parking lot PA. For example, when a vehicle of a special size or a special type enters the parking lot PA, although the special vehicle cannot be parked in the currently vacant parking space PS, the special vehicle may be able to be parked by moving another parked vehicle to another parking space PS), causing the vehicle to travel along a route from the entrance, and causes the vehicle to be parked in, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space in which an intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Noguchi, [0070] disclosing that it is desirable that the rewriting processing unit 621 performs the rewriting process when the communication environment in the parking lot PA, more specifically, the communication environment of the parking space PS where the vehicle M performing the rewriting process is parked is at a predetermined level or higher. Here, when the communication environment is at a predetermined level or higher, for example, the intensity of the radio wave (for example, the radio wave of the network 35) used by the communication device 30 for communication is strong enough so that the software used for the rewriting process can be smoothly downloaded from the software distribution server 500. ... instead of the communication environment at a predetermined level or higher, the communication speed of a communicable (available) communication line (for example, network 35) may be at a predetermined speed or higher; [0095]) ... . Santamala, Sasaki and Noguchi are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Noguchi relates to a notification device that notifies an accommodation area that can accommodate a moving body (see Noguchi, [0002]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of, in a case where an occupant of the vehicle gets off at an entrance of a parking facility including a plurality of parking spaces, and thereafter, having the vehicle travel from the entrance to, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space, which is a predetermined vacant parking space, by automatic driving and is parked in the vacant parking space, and causing the vehicle to travel along a route from the entrance, and causes the vehicle to be parked in, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space in which an intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than a threshold, as disclosed in Noguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring sufficient communication quality for the successful transfer of data or software. As per claim 16 , similar to claim 7, the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitation: ... the route being a route in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold set in advance (see at least Sasaki, [0019]; [0026]; [0063]; [0064]). But, neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following laminarizations taught in Noguchi: wherein in a case where an occupant of the vehicle gets off at an entrance of a parking facility including a plurality of parking spaces (see at least Noguchi, Fig. 2, [0051], and thereafter, the vehicle travels from the entrance to, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space, which is a predetermined vacant parking space, by automatic driving and is parked in the vacant parking space (see at least Noguchi, [0064]; [0073]), causing the vehicle to travel along a route from the entrance, and that the vehicle is parked in, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space in which an intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Noguchi, [0070]; [0095]) ... . Santamala, Sasaki and Noguchi are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Noguchi relates to a notification device that notifies an accommodation area that can accommodate a moving body (see Noguchi, [0002]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of, in a case where an occupant of the vehicle gets off at an entrance of a parking facility including a plurality of parking spaces, and thereafter, having the vehicle travel from the entrance to, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space, which is a predetermined vacant parking space, by automatic driving and is parked in the vacant parking space, and causing the vehicle to travel along a route from the entrance, and causes the vehicle to be parked in, among the plurality of parking spaces, a vacant parking space in which an intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than a threshold, as disclosed in Noguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring sufficient communication quality for the successful transfer of data or software . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala and Sasaki as applied to claim s 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0294320 Zhu et al. (hereafter Zhu) . As per claim 8 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Zhu: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: accumulating that information to be transmitted to the external apparatus while the vehicle travels along a travel route in which an intensity of the received radio wave is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Zhu, claim 4, disclosing packaging at least one first data meeting the acquisition condition respectively to obtain at least one data packet, wherein each of the at least one data packet corresponds to its own acquisition condition; when network strength of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a first threshold, sending each of the at least one data packet to the server; and when the network strength of the vehicle is less than the first threshold, determining a target data packet according to the weight of the acquisition condition corresponding to each of the at least one data packet and sending the target data packet to the server), and controlling that the accumulated information is transmitted to the external apparatus after the vehicle reaches a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold (see at least Zhu, claim 4). Santamala, Sasaki and Zhu are analogous art to claim 8 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Zhu relates to the field of automatic driving in computer technology relative to data acquisition (see at least Zhu, [0020]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of accumulating that information to be transmitted to the external apparatus while the vehicle travels along a travel route in which an intensity of the received radio wave is less than a threshold set in advance, and controlling that the accumulated information is transmitted to the external apparatus after the vehicle reaches a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold, as disclosed in Zhu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring sufficient management of data for the successful transfer of data pertaining to the driving scene. As per claim 17 , similar to claim 8, the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. But, neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Zhu: accumulating that information to be transmitted to the external apparatus while the vehicle travels along a travel route in which an intensity of the received radio wave is less than a threshold set in advance (see at least Zhu, claim 4) and controlling that the accumulated information is transmitted to the external apparatus when the vehicle reaches a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold (see at least Zhu, claim 4). Santamala, Sasaki and Zhu are analogous art to claim 17 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Zhu relates to the field of automatic driving in computer technology relative to data acquisition (see at least Zhu, [0020]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of accumulating that information to be transmitted to the external apparatus while the vehicle travels along a travel route in which an intensity of the received radio wave is less than a threshold set in advance, and controlling that the accumulated information is transmitted to the external apparatus after the vehicle reaches a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold, as disclosed in Zhu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring sufficient management of data for the successful transfer of data pertaining to the driving scene . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala and Sasaki as applied to claim s 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0050240 to Simons et al. (hereafter Simons) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0204076 to Nishi et al (hereafter Nishi) . As per claim 9 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: measuring an intensity of the received radio wave (see at least Sasaki, [0031] disclosing that each of the in-vehicle apparatuses 2 sends positional information and a measured result of 5G field strength at the position to the center server 1 at predetermined intervals. The center server 1 holds the positional information and measured result of 5G field strength received from each in-vehicle apparatus 2 as big data and generates map information about a distribution of 5G field strength from the big data. Hereinafter, the map information about a distribution of field strength is referred to as field strength map. Not limited to this configuration, the center server 1 may acquire a field strength map on 5G from a communication carrier in advance ; [0032] disclosing that in response to a request from the in-vehicle apparatus 2, the center server 1 generates routes having good 5G communication quality based on the field strength map and provides the routes to the in-vehicle apparatus 2. The in-vehicle apparatus 2 sends a request for providing routes having good 5G communication quality to the center server 1, for example, when a route is set at the time of starting to move to a destination, or when sending or receiving a massive amount of data is started) ... (1) ... ; wherein in a case where the intensity of the received radio wave measured in the measuring is less than a threshold set in advance during automatic driving of the vehicle (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0063] disclosing that the control unit 12 sorts the plurality of acquired routes by consulting the field strength map DB 13 in accordance with the predetermined condition. A sorting condition is, for example, any one or combination of ascending order of the number of sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than a first threshold, ascending order of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than the first threshold, ascending order of the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is lower than the first threshold, descending order of the number of sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to a second threshold, descending order of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to the second threshold, descending order of the percentage of the total distance of the sections in which the 5G field strength is higher than or equal to the second threshold; [0064]) ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... . But, neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Simons: (1) notifying notification to an occupant of the vehicle (see at least Simons, Abstract, disclosing a user interface is displayed, to a screen of a mobile device, for configuration of a signal strength offset of a wireless transceiver to a vehicle, the signal strength offset being an offset with respect to a default calibration of signal strength measurements between the wireless transceiver and the vehicle, the signal strength calibration being for use in calibrating a location of the mobile device for a passive zone with respect to the vehicle. An update to the signal strength calibration is received from the user interface. The signal strength calibration as updated is sent to the vehicle for use in locating the mobile device for the passive zone; [0005] disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable medium includes instructions for configuration of signal strength calibration offset, that, when executed by a processor of a mobile device, cause the mobile device to perform operations including to display, to a screen of a mobile device, a user interface for configuration of a signal strength offset of a wireless transceiver to a vehicle, the signal strength offset being an offset with respect to a default calibration of signal strength measurements between the wireless transceiver and the vehicle, the signal strength calibration being for use in calibrating a location of the mobile device for a passive zone with respect to the vehicle; receive an update to the signal strength calibration from the user interface; and send the signal strength calibration as updated to the vehicle for use in locating the mobile device for the passive zone), ... . But, neither Santamala, Sasaki nor Simons explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Nishi: (2) notifying that notification of switching from the automatic driving to manual driving (see at least Nishi, [0525] disclosing that the vehicle notifies the driver of that the vehicle cannot maintain the functionally of automatic operation, etc. that is performed on the basis of the self-location estimation, and shifts the operation mode to a manual mode in which the driver operates the vehicle ), and (3) controlling that the automatic driving is switched to the manual driving (see at least Nishi, [0544] disclosing that the vehicle may not judge whether the vehicle can continue automatic operation, but may switch levels (modes) of automatic operation in accordance with the accuracy of self-location estimation or the traveling environment of the vehicle. Here, to switch levels (modes) of automatic operation means, for example, to limit the speed, increase the degree of driver operation (lower the automatic level of automatic operation), switch to a mode in which the vehicle obtains information on the operation of a preceding vehicle to refer to it for its own operation, switch to a mode in which the vehicle obtains information on the operation of a vehicle heading for the same destination to use it for automatic operation, etc.; [ 0546]; [0566]). Santamala, Sasaki, Simons and Nishi are analogous art to claim 9 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Simons relate to calibration of phone based key systems using a smartphone or other mobile device (see Simons, [0001]). Nishi relates to a three-dimensional data creation method for use in a vehicle including a sensor and a data receiver that transmits and receives three-dimensional data to and from an external device (see Nishi, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of (1) notifying notification to an occupant of the vehicle with regard to the intensity of the radio wave, as disclosed in Simons, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring successful transfer of data pertaining to the driving scene. It would have further been obvious to have further modified the method as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki and Simons, to provide the benefit of (2) notifying that the driving mode has switched from the automatic driving to manual driving and (3)controlling that the automatic driving is switched to the manual driving, as disclosed in Nishi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by notifying the driver of the switch from automatic to manual mode. As per claim 18 , similar to claim 9, the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: measuring an intensity of the received radio wave (see at least Sasaki, [0031]; [0032]), ... (1) ... ; in a case where the intensity of the received radio wave measured in the measuring is less than a threshold set in advance during automatic driving of the vehicle (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0063]; [0064]), ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... . But, neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Simons: (1) notifying that notification to an occupant of the vehicle (see at least Simons, Abstract; [0005]) ... . But, neither Santamala, Sasaki nor Simons explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Nishi: (2) notifying that notification of switching from the automatic driving to manual driving is performed (see at least Nishi, [0525]), and (3) controlling that the automatic driving is switched to the manual driving (see at least Nishi, [0544]; [ 0546]; [0566]). Santamala, Sasaki, Simons and Nishi are analogous art to claim 18 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Simons relate to calibration of phone based key systems using a smartphone or other mobile device (see Simons, [0001]). Nishi relates to a three-dimensional data creation method for use in a vehicle including a sensor and a data receiver that transmits and receives three-dimensional data to and from an external device (see Nishi, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, to provide the benefit of (1) notifying notification to an occupant of the vehicle with regard to the intensity of the radio wave, as disclosed in Simons, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring successful transfer of data pertaining to the driving scene. It would have further been obvious to have further modified the method as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki and Simons, to provide the benefit of (2) notifying that the driving mode has switched from the automatic driving to manual driving and (3)controlling that the automatic driving is switched to the manual driving, as disclosed in Nishi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by notifying the driver of the switch from automatic to manual mode . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala, Sasaki, Simons and Nishi as applied to claim s 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication Number JP 2021022246 A to Tokuda et al. (hereafter Tokuda) . Claim 10 , the combination of Santamala, Sasaki, Simons and Nishi discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. But, neither Santamala, Sasaki, Simons nor Nishi explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Tokuda: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: in a case where the notification is executed, displaying an image indicating a route from a current position of the vehicle to a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold (see at least Tokuda at Pg. 3, para. 6, disclosing that as shown in FIG. 5 as an example, the display unit 25 has position-specific communication strength information and route information (a communication priority route indicating a route connecting positions having a communication strength of a predetermined value or more, and a purpose of the communication priority route. It is possible to display a time-priority route that indicates a route with a short travel time to the ground. Further, the display unit 25 is capable of displaying predetermined coping method information and the like capable of maintaining running stability at a position where the communication strength is less than a predetermined value). Santamala, Sasaki, Simons, Nishi and Tokuda are analogous art to claim 10 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Simons relate to calibration of phone based key systems using a smartphone or other mobile device (see Simons, [0001]). Nishi relates to a three-dimensional data creation method for use in a vehicle including a sensor and a data receiver that transmits and receives three-dimensional data to and from an external device (see Nishi, Abstract). Tokuda relates to remote control systems, programs and vehicles (see Tokuda, pg. 1, Deception). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, Simons and Nishi, to provide the benefit of displaying an image indicating a route from a current position of the vehicle to a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold, as disclosed in Tokuda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of maintaining travel stability at positions where communication intensity is low while prioritizing travel time to a destination (see Tokuda, Abstract). Claim 19 , similar to claim 10, the combination of Santamala, Sasaki, Simons and Nishi discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. But, neither Santamala, Sasaki, Simons nor Nishi explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Tokuda: in a case where the notification is executed, displaying an image indicating a route from a current position of the vehicle to a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold (see at least Tokuda, Pg. 3, para. 6). Santamala, Sasaki, Simons, Nishi and Tokuda are analogous art to claim 19 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Simons relate to calibration of phone based key systems using a smartphone or other mobile device (see Simons, [0001]). Nishi relates to a three-dimensional data creation method for use in a vehicle including a sensor and a data receiver that transmits and receives three-dimensional data to and from an external device (see Nishi, Abstract). Tokuda relates to remote control systems, programs and vehicles (see Tokuda, pg. 1, Deception). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Santamala, as modified by Sasaki, Simons and Nishi, to provide the benefit of displaying an image indicating a route from a current position of the vehicle to a position in which the intensity of the received radio wave is equal to or greater than the threshold, as disclosed in Tokuda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of maintaining travel stability at positions where communication intensity is low while prioritizing travel time to a destination (see Tokuda, Abstract) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santamala and Sasaki as applied to claim s 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0218814 to Tran . Claim 11 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: measuring an intensity of the received radio wave (as cited in claim 9, see at least Sasaski, [0031] ), wherein in a case where the intensity of the received radio wave measured in the measuring is less than a threshold set in advance during automatic driving of the vehicle (as cited in claim 2, see at least Sasaski, [0026]; [0063]; [0064]) ... . But, the difference between the combination of Santamala and Sasaki and the claimed invention is that neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Tran, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: controlling that the vehicle returns from a current position of the vehicle to a departure point via a route along which the vehicle has traveled to the current position (see at least Tran, [0019] disclosing that a method for cost-effective navigation of a vehicle in a metropolitan (metro) area includes capturing images from a plurality of cameras in the vehicle; recognizing objects from the images using one or more neural networks; providing an accelerometer to perform position determination with dead-reckoning; providing position coordinates from a global positioning system; receiving positioning coordinates from a low latency cellular or wifi transceiver positioned at a known position; and generating a travel path for the vehicle in the metro area ; [0076]; [0077] disclosing that vehicle may take the steps necessary to get medical assistance for the driver/passenger. By way of example, the vehicle may autonomously and without direct human assistance navigate to a hospital or medical clinic, notify the facility of the medical emergency, safely transferring the passenger and/or the driver to the medical facility and return to its original location when done.). Santamala, Sasaki and Tran are analogous art to claim 11 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Tran relates to smart car has a number of sensors such as IoT (internet of things) sensors that can share data with other vehicles and that can communicate with the cloud to provide intelligent handling of the car (see Tran, [0002]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Santamala, to provide the benefit of controlling the vehicle to return from a current position of the vehicle to a departure point via a route along which the vehicle has traveled to the current position, as disclosed in Tran, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. Claim 20 , similar to claim 11, the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Sasaki further discloses the following limitations: measuring an intensity of the received radio wave (see at least Sasaki, [0031]), and in a case where the intensity of the received radio wave measured in the measuring is less than a threshold set in advance during automatic driving of the vehicle (see at least Sasaki, [0026]; [0063]; [0064] ) ... . But, the difference between the combination of Santamala and Sasaki and the claimed invention is that neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Tran, a comparable method where it was known to have: controlling that the vehicle returns from a current position of the vehicle to a departure point via a route along which the vehicle has traveled to the current position (see at least Tran, [0019]; [0076]; [0077]). Santamala, Sasaki and Tran are analogous art to claim 20 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Tran relates to smart car has a number of sensors such as IoT (internet of things) sensors that can share data with other vehicles and that can communicate with the cloud to provide intelligent handling of the car (see Tran, [0002]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Santamala, to provide the benefit of controlling the vehicle to return from a current position of the vehicle to a departure point via a route along which the vehicle has traveled to the current position, as disclosed in Tran, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 12 is re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sa ntamala and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 a b ove, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0354111 to Cheng et al. (hereafter Cheng) . Cl aim 12 , the combination of Santamala and Sasaki discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between the combination of Santamala and Sasaki and the claimed invention is that neither Santamala nor Sasaki explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Cheng, a comparable processing apparatus where it was known to have: wherein the processor to perform operations further comprising: transmitting vehicle information indicating a current position of the vehicle, a state of an in-vehicle apparatus of the vehicle, and a peripheral situation of the vehicle to the external apparatus (see at least Cheng, Abstract,; [0013]; [0046] disclosing that As shown in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4, as local cellular network performance decreases, the autonomous vehicle increases sensitivity (or “decreases a sensitivity threshold”) to environment and/or perception conditions that trigger remote operator events; and vice versa. For example, the autonomous vehicle can increase a minimum threshold confidence for types or trajectories of external objects output by a perception pipeline executed on the autonomous vehicle responsive to degradation of performance of one or multiple cellular networks in the autonomous vehicle's location; then, if the perception pipeline fails to predict a type or trajectory of every object near the autonomous vehicle or near the autonomous vehicle's path near this location with more than this minimum threshold confidence, the autonomous vehicle can trigger a remote operator event; [0056] disclosing that The autonomous vehicle can also prompt different types of remote operator interactions with the autonomous vehicle based on wireless network signal quality proximal the autonomous vehicle. In one example, when the autonomous vehicle confirms “near-optimal” wireless network quality and detects a remote operator event condition at its current location, the autonomous vehicle can transmit a request to a remote operator to assume remote manual control of steering inputs at the autonomous vehicle and broadcast LIDAR and/video feeds to the remote operator portal via these local cellular networks, which may support such low-latency data transfer from the autonomous vehicle. However, if the autonomous vehicle detects a remote operator event condition in a location in which the autonomous vehicle has also detected poor cellular network performance, the autonomous vehicle can instead transmit—to a remote operator portal—a compressed video and a request for the remote operator to select either a “stop” or a “go” function for the autonomous vehicle; [0057] further disclosing that he autonomous vehicle can implement any other method or technique to increase sensitivity to remote operator event conditions responsive to degradation of performance of one or more cellular networks at the autonomous vehicle's location in Block S13), and receiving instruction information from the external apparatus (see at least Cheng, [0056]), the instruction information indicating an instruction for a behavior of the vehicle, the behavior being determined based on the vehicle information, and controlling an automatic operation of the vehicle based on the instruction information (see at least Cheng, [0056]; [0057]). Santamala, Sasaki and Cheng are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of evaluating communications with external apparatus via a mobile communication network. Santamala relates to systems and methods for managing and processing data associated with AVs using remote processing resources (see at least Santamala, [0003]). Cheng relates to a method for dynamically querying a remote operator for assistance in the field of autonomous vehicle (see Cheng, [0002]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Santamala, to provide the benefit of: transmitting vehicle information indicating a current position of the vehicle, a state of an in-vehicle apparatus of the vehicle, and a peripheral situation of the vehicle to the external apparatus, receiving instruction information from the external apparatus, and having the instruction information indicate an instruction for a behavior of the vehicle, the behavior being determined based on the vehicle information, and controlling an automatic operation of the vehicle based on the instruction information, as disclosed in Cheng, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 pm. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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. PATRICK M. BRADY III Examiner Art Unit 3665 /PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 9 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 10 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 11 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 12 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 13 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 14 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 15 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 16 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 17 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 18 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 19 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 20 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 22 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 23 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 24 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 25 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 26 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 27 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 28 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 29 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 30 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 31 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 32 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 33 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 34 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 35 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 36 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 37 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 38 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 39 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 40 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 41 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 42 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 43 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 44 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 45 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/038,101 Page 46 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights