DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 17-22, 25-27 and 31-32 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17, 27 and 30-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-22, 25-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17 (similarly claims 27, 30-31), the claim(s) requires the system/apparatus to verify that “a computing capacity of an external system…is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value”. The specification merely repeats the same claim language (in published specification [0064, 0069) and that the external system may evaluate whether it can process the vehicle in the requested/predicted time with regards to the limits specific thereto (for example, computing power)? (in published specification [0182]). Although the specification mentions computing power and system limits but Applicant has apparently fails to describe, by what algorithm(s) or by what steps/procedure of the following: (i) what constitutes as computing capacity; (ii) how the computing capacity threshold value is determined, measured or monitored; (iii) how the system performs such verification. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-22, 25-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17 (similarly claims 27, 30-31), the recited claim limitation(s) “verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system…is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification because the specification does not define what either computing capacity or predetermine computing capacity threshold value may be. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The terms “proper functioning”, “fully functional”, “desired weather”, “desired traffic conditions” in claim 17 (similarly claims 27, 30-31) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proper functioning”, “fully functional”, “desired weather”, “desired traffic conditions” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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 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.
Claim(s) 17-19, 26 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2019/0163176 A1 hereinafter Wang’3176) in view of Altman (US 2021/0116907 A1).
Regarding claim 17 (similarly claims 30-31), Wang’3176 teaches A method for an at least semi-automated guidance of a motor vehicle (see at least Abstract), comprising the following steps:
receiving request signals, which represent a request from an onboard automated driving system of the motor vehicle that the motor vehicle is to be remotely controlled in order for the motor vehicle to be guided in an at least semi-automated manner; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0044-0077]: as the autonomous vehicle approaches a road segment specified in a remote operator trigger, the autonomous vehicle can submit a request for human assistance to a remote operator.)
checking, in response to receipt of the request signals, whether the request may be met; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0044-0077]: Upon receipt of a request for manual assistance from the autonomous vehicle, the remote operator manager can selectively reject the autonomous vehicle’s request or connect the autonomous vehicle to an available remote operator based on a weight or priority associated with this remote operator trigger and based on current resource load. That is, the remote operator manager check/determine whether remote control request may be met/fulfilled upon receipt of request signal)
based on the request being able to be met, generating remote control signals for the at least semi-automated remote control of a lateral and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle; (see at least Abstract [0051-0058]: Upon receipt of remote control request and when it’s determined that the vehicle is at a road segment that requires remote assistance based on vehicle’s conditions detected, the remote operator can connect the AV to an available remote operator and remotely engage the autonomous vehicle to pass the road segment) and
outputting the generated remote control signals to guide the motor vehicle in an at least semi-automated manner from a remote location based on the generated remote control signals, (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0044-0077]: in response to confirmation of manual assistance from the remote operator, the autonomous vehicle can transfer braking, acceleration, and steering controls of the autonomous vehicle to the remote operator portal; and then execute braking, acceleration, and/or steering commands received from the remote operator portal.)
wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes optionally one or more elements selected from the following group of conditions, respectively: (iii) an apparatus for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle, which performs the steps of the method for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is in operation and fully functional, (iv) actual weather corresponds to a desired weather (see at least [0011-0016, 0022-0026, 0045-0050]: remote computer system preemptively identify high-risk road segments in which autonomous vehicle may be unable to confidently perform an action at certain locations and require remote operator assistance. Such conditions could be due to road characteristics, local weather conditions (e.g. sun intensity or sensor obscuration due to sunlight) and local traffic conditions (e.g. entering school zone, nearing large crowd of pedestrians, approaching unprotected turn or uncommon intersections). That is, these weather conditions and traffic conditions that are desired conditions for triggering (hence requiring) remote control assistance for the autonomous vehicle in certain road segments are predefined (for meeting remote control assistance request) in the map. NOTE: The applicant has elected to use “one or plurality of” in the claims, and therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies.), (v) actual traffic condition in an area surrounding the motor vehicle corresponds to a desired traffic condition, (see at least [0011-0016, 0022-0026, 0045-0050]: remote computer system preemptively identify high-risk road segments in which autonomous vehicle may be unable to confidently perform an action at certain locations and require remote operator assistance. Such conditions could be due to road characteristics, local weather conditions (e.g. sun intensity or sensor obscuration due to sunlight) and local traffic conditions (e.g. entering school zone, nearing large crowd of pedestrians, approaching unprotected turn or uncommon intersections). That is, these weather conditions and traffic conditions that are desired conditions for triggering (hence requiring) remote control assistance for the autonomous vehicle in certain road segments are predefined (for meeting remote control assistance request) in the map.)
It may be alleged that Wang’3176 discloses wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available, and
Altman is directed to field of teleoperation of vehicles and remote driving of autonomous vehicles, Altman teaches wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available, (see at least Fig. 1-4 [0015-0120]: A vehicular (in-vehicle) selector module, or an extra-vehicular selector module (e.g., located externally and remotely to the vehicle, such as at a central server or a central communication hub or a central AI module) may perform the selection or determination of which particular candidate tele-operating system, out of two or more such candidates, would actually be selected and would be assigned or allocated the task of tele-operating when needed or when desired to do so. The selector module may take into account a set of parameters, conditions and/or criteria for this purpose; for example, the current or actual or predicted or estimated or historic characteristics of the communication between the particular vehicle and each such candidate (e.g., communication bandwidth, throughput, goodput, latency, delay, error rate, reliability, signal strength, Quality of Service (QoS) of transmission and/or reception), current weather conditions and environment conditions (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have specific experience to operate a vehicle traveling in snow or in fog or in rain), current geo-spatial parameters (current location, speed, acceleration), current time (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have specific experience to support vehicles at night-time, or during rush-hour), current day-of-week or date (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have increased resources or reduced resources during weekends, or during holidays), road data (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have or may lack specific experience for remotely operating a vehicle in a mountain road or in an urban area or in a serpentine road), the current or estimated work-load or computational load at each such candidate tele-operator, the number of other vehicles that are currently being tele-operated or monitored by each candidate tele-operator, the current or recent response time(s) exhibited by each such candidate tele-operator, a pre-defined priority order of tele-operators that was pre-defined by an owner of the vehicle and/or by a maker of the vehicle or by a system administrator, and/or based on a weighted formula that takes into account a weighted combination of some of the above-mentioned parameters. Examiner notes that although Altman doesn’t explicitly states a predetermined threshold hold value, the fact that the selector module makes decisions based on current or estimated work/computational load means that there is some criteria/threshold on the verification on whether a request can be met.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’3176’s system and method for transferring control of an autonomous vehicle to a remote operator to incorporate the technique of checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available as taught by Altman with reasonable expectation of success to provide a teleoperation system can better allocate resources to avoid overloading teleoperators’ s work load.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman teaches The method as recited in claim 17,
Wang’3176 further teaches wherein the request includes a starting position or a starting area where or within which the remote control of the motor vehicle is to begin when the motor vehicle is located at the starting position or within the starting area, and wherein based on the request being able to be met, the remote control signals are generated and output such that the remote control may begin when the motor vehicle is in the starting position or within the starting area. (see at least Fig. 4 [0050-0058]: the AV transmits a request for remote assistance in response to approaching a location/road segment along a route (i.e. starting position/area) upon confirming the AV’s current conditions requires remote assistance to navigate through a road segment, the autonomous vehicle hands over operational control to a remote operator as it enters the road segment when remote control request is approved.)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman teaches The method as recited in claim 17,
Wang’3176 further teaches wherein the request includes an end position or an end area where or within which the remote control of the motor vehicle is to be terminated when the motor vehicle is located at the end position or within the end area, and wherein based on the request being able to be met, the remote control signals are generated and output in such a way that the remote control can be terminated when the motor vehicle is located at the end position or within the end area. (see at least Fig. 4 Abstract [0014, 0063-0064]: The autonomous vehicle identified a road segment (i.e. starting and end position within an area) along a planned route that requires remote assistance and transmitted a request for remote assistance. Once the autonomous vehicle has moved fully past the location specified in the remote operator trigger, the autonomous vehicle can return to full autonomous operation.)
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman teaches The method as recited in claim 17,
Wang’3176 further teaches wherein the remote control of the motor vehicle is begun while the motor vehicle is moving or while it is stationary and/or the remote control of the motor vehicle is terminated while the motor vehicle is moving or while it is stationary. (see at least Fig. 4 Abstract [0010-0015, 0050-0058, 0063-0064]: The autonomous vehicle identified a road segment along a planned route that requires remote assistance and automatically transmitted a request for remote assistance. The autonomous vehicle automatically cede decision-making or full operation control of the vehicle to a remote operator upon arriving said location (i.e. stationary/moving) and once it has moved fully past the location specified in the remote operator trigger (i.e. moving), the autonomous vehicle can regain control and return to full autonomous operation.)
Claim(s) 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang’3176 in view of Altman and Stefan et al. (US 2014/0207535 A1 hereinafter Stefan)
Regarding claims 20, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman teaches The method as recited in claims 17,
The combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman does not explicitly teach wherein prior to a termination of the remote control of the motor vehicle, further request signals are generated and output which represent a further request to the motor vehicle and/or to a driver of the motor vehicle that the at least semi-automated, remote guidance is to be transferred back to motor vehicle or to the driver, and wherein the remote control of the motor vehicle is terminated as a function of a response to the further request.
Stefan is directed to method and system for remote controlling motor vehicles, Stefan teaches wherein prior to a termination of the remote control of the motor vehicle, further request signals are generated and output which represent a further request to the motor vehicle and/or to a driver of the motor vehicle that the at least semi-automated, remote guidance is to be transferred back to motor vehicle or to the driver, and wherein the remote control of the motor vehicle is terminated as a function of a response to the further request. (see at least [0086-0087]: if it’s determined there’s a request to end the remote-controlled driving operation (e.g. the remote-controlled driving has reached a planned end in time or space), the driver of the motor vehicle is alerted that a termination of remote-controlled operation is about to end where the type or intensity alert depending on the reason for termination and the remote-controlled driving operation is ended and the driver has full and sole control of the vehicle again).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang’3176 and Altman to incorporate the technique of generating/outputting request signals to the motor vehicle and/or driver prior to a termination of the remote control of the motor vehicle and terminating remote control of the vehicle based on a response to the request signal as taught by Stefan with reasonable expectation of success to provide a demand-activated remote control systems for vehicle and doing so may promote the spread and acceptance of fully autonomous driving (Stefan [0027]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman teaches The method as recited in claim 17, further comprising:
The combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman does not explicitly teach outputting indicator signals, wherein the indicator signals represent an indication that the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle from the remote location is possible and/or specified.
Stefan is directed to method and system for remote controlling motor vehicles, Stefan teaches outputting indicator signals, wherein the indicator signals represent an indication that the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle from the remote location is possible and/or specified. (see at least [0019-0023, 0040-0043, 0059-0060]: remote control of the motor vehicle can be affected by a person or by software which is located at any other location than the motor vehicle. A man-machine interface, a voice communication module (i.e. indicator signal) and the like, enables driver to activate, control by, selector remote operator or to terminate remote control.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang’3176 and Altman to incorporate the technique of outputting indicator signals indicating that the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle from the remote location is possible and/or specified as taught by Stefan with reasonable expectation of success to provide a demand-activated remote control systems for vehicle and doing so may promote the spread and acceptance of fully autonomous driving (Stefan [0027]).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang’3176 in view of Altman , Stefan and Li et al (US 2017/0243484 A1 hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman and Stefan teaches The method as recited in claim 20,
However, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman and Stefan does not explicitly teach wherein if the response from the motor vehicle and/or the driver to the further request is absent, the generation of the remote control signals includes generating those for a remotely controlled transfer of the motor vehicle to a safe state in order to transfer the motor vehicle by remote control to a safe state based on the generated remote control signals.
Li is directed toward a remote driving assistance that provides remote driving assistance service to motor vehicle. Li teaches wherein if the response from the motor vehicle and/or the driver to the further request is absent, the generation of the remote control signals includes generating those for a remotely controlled transfer of the motor vehicle to a safe state in order to transfer the motor vehicle by remote control to a safe state based on the generated remote control signals. (see at least [0037]: when it’s determined the vehicle is outside of congested area (i.e. end of remote-controlled area), the control center may transmit instruction for the driver to resume control of vehicle (i.e. further request). The control center may transmit remote driving commands to guide vehicle to a safe location if the driver has not resumed control of vehicle as instructed (i.e. response is absent).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wang’3176, Altman and Stefan to incorporate the technique of generating remote control signals to transfer the motor vehicle to a safe state when a driver fails to resumed control of vehicles as instructed as taught by Li with reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would relieve burden on driver and improve roadway safety by providing remote-control driving assistance to drivers experiencing health emergency or fatigue (Li, [0004]).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang’3176 in view of Altman, Stefan and Poltorak (US 2003/0128135 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman and Stefan teaches The method as recited in claim 20,
However, the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Altman and Stefan does not explicitly teach wherein in the absence of the response from the motor vehicle and/or the driver to the further request, light-signal system control signals for controlling one or a plurality of light signal systems located in the area surrounding the motor vehicle are generated and output in such a way that, when one or a plurality of light signal systems are controlled, they are able to block traffic for the motor vehicle via signal patterns thereof.
Poltorak is directed toward providing a remote control apparatus for traffic control device along a travel route. Poltorak teaches light-signal system control signals for controlling one or a plurality of light signal systems located in the area surrounding the motor vehicle are generated and output in such a way that, when one or a plurality of light signal systems are controlled, they are able to block traffic for the motor vehicle via signal patterns thereof. (see at least Fig. 9A-B Abstract [0310-0354]: A traffic control apparatus for performing remote control of traffic control device for changing an operating mode of a traffic light from on to off or vice versa to minimize travel delay for a vehicle.)
Poltorak teaches the technique of controlling a light signal system in a geographical area using a remote traffic control apparatus for changing an operation mode of a traffic light to minimize travel delay for a vehicle and is silent to the specifics of controlling a light signal system in the absence of the response from the motor vehicle and/or the driver to the further request. Nevertheless, the technique of controlling a light signal system located in an area surrounding the motor vehicle in the absence of a response from the motor vehicle and/or driver to the further request would have been an obvious technique for one of ordinary skilled in the art because it is important to ensure the vehicle driver acknowledge the return of vehicle control and takes over controlling the vehicle after a remote-controlling operation is ended to ensure roadway safety; and one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Wang’3176, Altman and Stefan to incorporate the technique of controlling light signal system in an area to block traffic for the motor vehicle as taught by Poltorak with reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would can serve an important function in minimizing the travel time and effort of emergency service vehicles (Poltorak, [0002-0003]).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan in view of Wang’3176 and Altman.
Regarding claim 27, Stefan teaches A method for an at least semi-automated guidance of a motor vehicle (see at least Abstract), comprising the following steps:
during an at least semi-automated, remotely controlled, lateral and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle, in order for the motor vehicle to be guided in an at least semi-automated manner (see at least [0004, 0085-0086]: after a remote control operator is selected, the driver is informed that the at least partially autonomous vehicle is switched over to be remote-controlled by the operator and continuously being remote-controlled/monitored by the operator)
receiving request signals, which represent a request to the remotely controlled motor vehicle and/or to a driver of the remotely controlled motor vehicle that the at least semi-automated, remote guidance is to be transferred back to the motor vehicle or to the driver; (see at least [0085-0086]: when it’s determined that there’s a need for terminating the remote-controlled driving operation due to a planned end in time or space, the driver of the remote-controlled motor vehicle is alerted (i.e. request signal to a driver of the remotely controlled motor vehicle)).
wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes a check whether one or a plurality of conditions is met, the request being met only if one or more or a plurality or all of the one or the plurality of conditions are met. (see at least Fig. 4 [0013, 0075-0081]: upon receipt of the remote-control request, the request can be accepted or rejected based on validity check whether a critical situation has been detected such as drunk driving, whether an operator is available, or whether the service is paid, etc.)
Stefan does not explicitly teach based on the request being able to be met, generating remote control signals for the at least semi-automated remote control of a lateral and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle;
wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available, and optionally one or more elements selected from the following group of conditions, respectively: (iii) an apparatus for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle, which performs the steps of the method for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is in operation and fully functional, (iv) actual weather corresponds to a desired weather, (v) actual traffic condition in an area surrounding the motor vehicle corresponds to a desired traffic condition.
Wang’3176 is directed toward providing remote assistance to autonomous vehicles. Wang’3176 teaches based on the request being able to be met, generating remote control signals for the at least semi-automated remote control of a lateral and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle; (see at least Abstract [0051-0058]: Upon receipt of remote control request and when it’s determined that the vehicle is at a road segment that requires remote assistance based on vehicle’s conditions detected, the remote operator can connect the AV to an available remote operator and remotely engage the autonomous vehicle to pass the road segment) and
wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes optionally one or more elements selected from the following group of conditions, respectively: (iii) an apparatus for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle, which performs the steps of the method for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is in operation and fully functional, (iv) actual weather corresponds to a desired weather (see at least [0011-0016, 0022-0026, 0045-0050]: remote computer system preemptively identify high-risk road segments in which autonomous vehicle may be unable to confidently perform an action at certain locations and require remote operator assistance. Such conditions could be due to road characteristics, local weather conditions (e.g. sun intensity or sensor obscuration due to sunlight) and local traffic conditions (e.g. entering school zone, nearing large crowd of pedestrians, approaching unprotected turn or uncommon intersections). That is, these weather conditions and traffic conditions that are desired conditions for triggering (hence requiring) remote control assistance for the autonomous vehicle in certain road segments are predefined (for meeting remote control assistance request) in the map. NOTE: The applicant has elected to use “one or plurality of” in the claims, and therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies.), (v) actual traffic condition in an area surrounding the motor vehicle corresponds to a desired traffic condition, (see at least [0011-0016, 0022-0026, 0045-0050]: remote computer system preemptively identify high-risk road segments in which autonomous vehicle may be unable to confidently perform an action at certain locations and require remote operator assistance. Such conditions could be due to road characteristics, local weather conditions (e.g. sun intensity or sensor obscuration due to sunlight) and local traffic conditions (e.g. entering school zone, nearing large crowd of pedestrians, approaching unprotected turn or uncommon intersections). That is, these weather conditions and traffic conditions that are desired conditions for triggering (hence requiring) remote control assistance for the autonomous vehicle in certain road segments are predefined (for meeting remote control assistance request) in the map.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stefan’s demand activated remote control of motor vehicles to incorporate the technique of generating remote control signals for the at least semi-automated remote control of a lateral and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle and predefining conditions that met recontrol assistance request such as actual weather corresponds to a desired weather and actual traffic condition in an area surrounding the motor vehicle corresponds to a desired traffic condition as taught by Wang’3176 with reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would reduce risk to autonomous vehicles entering known higher-risk scenarios and in order to maintain high operating efficiency for autonomous vehicles (Wang’3176, [0015]).
It may be alleged that the combination of Wang’3176 in view of Stefan does not explicitly teach wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available,
Altman is directed to field of teleoperation of vehicles and remote driving of autonomous vehicles, Altman teaches wherein the checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available, (see at least Fig. 1-4 [0015-0120]: A vehicular (in-vehicle) selector module, or an extra-vehicular selector module (e.g., located externally and remotely to the vehicle, such as at a central server or a central communication hub or a central AI module) may perform the selection or determination of which particular candidate tele-operating system, out of two or more such candidates, would actually be selected and would be assigned or allocated the task of tele-operating when needed or when desired to do so. The selector module may take into account a set of parameters, conditions and/or criteria for this purpose; for example, the current or actual or predicted or estimated or historic characteristics of the communication between the particular vehicle and each such candidate (e.g., communication bandwidth, throughput, goodput, latency, delay, error rate, reliability, signal strength, Quality of Service (QoS) of transmission and/or reception), current weather conditions and environment conditions (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have specific experience to operate a vehicle traveling in snow or in fog or in rain), current geo-spatial parameters (current location, speed, acceleration), current time (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have specific experience to support vehicles at night-time, or during rush-hour), current day-of-week or date (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have increased resources or reduced resources during weekends, or during holidays), road data (e.g., a particular tele-operator may have or may lack specific experience for remotely operating a vehicle in a mountain road or in an urban area or in a serpentine road), the current or estimated work-load or computational load at each such candidate tele-operator, the number of other vehicles that are currently being tele-operated or monitored by each candidate tele-operator, the current or recent response time(s) exhibited by each such candidate tele-operator, a pre-defined priority order of tele-operators that was pre-defined by an owner of the vehicle and/or by a maker of the vehicle or by a system administrator, and/or based on a weighted formula that takes into account a weighted combination of some of the above-mentioned parameters. Examiner notes that although Altman doesn’t explicitly states a predetermined threshold hold value, the fact that the selector module makes decisions based on current or estimated work/computational load means that there is some criteria/threshold on the verification on whether a request can be met.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stefan and Wang’3176 to incorporate the technique of checking of whether the request can be met includes verifying that (i) a computing capacity of an external system configured for the at least semi-automated guidance of the motor vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined computing capacity threshold value, and (ii) necessary conditions for a proper functioning of the remote control are fulfilled, including that the external system is in operation and that a requested service is currently available as taught by Altman with reasonable expectation of success to provide a teleoperation system can better allocate resources to avoid overloading teleoperators’ s work load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667