DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 12/1/25. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 15 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [0014, 0020, 0056]. Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/1/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 9-16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims are directed to an abstract idea of remote (human) workers queueing to perform teleoperations for autonomous vehicles
Merely stating a high level process of optimal matching is not an improvement to technology.
The claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with remote (human) workers queueing to perform teleoperations for autonomous vehicles
The claims here are not like those the Federal Circuit found patent eligible in DDR because applicant’s claim(s) here is/are not solving an internet-centric problem specifically arising in the realm of computers or computer networks because selecting a worker to solve a problem can be performed without the internet. Further the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology because a generic computer can perform the claimed solution.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/1/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 5, and 15 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to remote (human) workers queueing to perform teleoperations for autonomous vehicles.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 5-7 and 9-14 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 1-4, 16-17, and 19-22 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 5: receiving, from a vehicle, a request to provide remote operator assistance;
associating the request with a queue;
determining, among a set of available remote operators, a status set by a remote operator to resolve the request;
determining criteria associated with the remote operator;
monitoring a response time of the remote operator and updating, based at least in part on the response time meeting or exceeding a threshold, the status;
determining, based at least in part on the request, an updated status, and the criteria, to receive remote operator assistance from the remote operator;
sending information associated with the request to the remote operator; and
transmitting the remote operator assistance to the vehicle,
wherein the vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the remote operator assistance.
Claim(s) 1 and 15: same analysis as claim(s) 5.
Claim 1 additionally: receive, from an autonomous vehicle, a request for remote operator assistance, the request including information indicative of one or more of:
an event type, a mission type associated with the autonomous vehicle, sensor data associated with the autonomous vehicle, a location of the autonomous vehicle, a heading of the autonomous vehicle, or a speed of the autonomous vehicle;
determine a status of the remote operator, the status comprising a designation of whether the remote operator is on a break;
send the request to a device of the remote operator to cause display of the request to the remote operator;
determine assistance provided by the remote operator, the assistance associated with an at least partially defined path for the autonomous vehicle; and
transmit, to the autonomous vehicle, the assistance, wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to collaborate with the remote operator to plan a trajectory based at least in part on the assistance, and wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the trajectory.
Claim 15 additionally: determining, among a set of available remote operators, a status of a remote operator to resolve the request, the status comprising a designation of whether the remote operator is in training;
determining a workload balance of the set of available remote operators;
determining, based at least in part on the request, the status, the workload balance, and the criteria, to request the remote operator assistance from the remote operator; sending information associated with the request to the remote operator;
transmitting, as processor-executable instructions and via a network interface device associated with the remote operator, the remote operator assistance to the vehicle.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, and 16-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 15 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with remote (human) workers queueing to perform teleoperations for autonomous vehicles.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include vehicle (claim(s) 5, 15), a remote operations system for a fleet of autonomous vehicles, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory, device (claim(s) 1), a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, one or more processors (claim(s) 15), device (claim(s) 3), vehicle (claim(s) 6-7, 8, 9, 11-12, 16-17).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0025]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0025]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0310417 A1) in view of Hambridge et al. (US 2018/0330304 A1) and Chan et al. (US 2021/0142244 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Pedersen teaches a remote operations system for a fleet of autonomous vehicles, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the remote operations system to [see at least [0053, 0056, 0068] operations center 2400, vehicles 2100 (340-370), server 2500;
[0068] fleet of vehicles]:
receive, from an autonomous vehicle, a request for remote operator assistance, the request including information indicative of one or more of:
an event type, a mission type associated with the autonomous vehicle, sensor data associated with the autonomous vehicle, a location of the autonomous vehicle, a heading of the autonomous vehicle, or a speed of the autonomous vehicle;
associate, based at least in part on the information, the request with a queue of remote operator requests amonq remote operator requests, where the queue is associated with remote operators [for the limitations above, see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”;
[0128-0130] “The request can include information (e.g., state data) that can be useful to a tele-operator in responding to the request. …
The state data can include, but is not limited to, data that indicates the state or condition of the vehicle that is executing the technique 500, including any of kinetic state data relating to any of the velocity and acceleration of a vehicle, location data, including the geographical location of a vehicle (e.g., the latitude and longitude of the vehicle) or the location of the vehicle with respect to another object, vehicle position, including the orientation and inclination (e.g., slope of the vehicle on an incline) of the vehicle, the operational state of the vehicle, including the electrical state or mechanical state of the vehicle (e.g., health of the electrical vehicle systems, mechanical vehicle systems, tire pressure, etc.), maintenance data related to maintenance of the vehicle, energy source data including an amount of fuel remaining or an amount of battery charge remaining, sensor data based on outputs from sensors including, optical sensors, audio sensors, an motion sensors, internal state data, including a temperature and humidity inside the passenger cabin of the vehicle, and a current task (e.g., pick up a passenger) of the vehicle.
The transmitted information can also include state information of other road users that are maintained in a world model module, such as the world model module 402 of FIG. 4. For example, state of an object that is, or is a part of, the obstruction, and/or the state of other objects proximal to the vehicle can be included in the transmitted information. For example, zero or more of a velocity, a pose, a geometry (such as width, height, and depth), a classification (e.g., bicycle, large truck, pedestrian, road sign, etc.), a location, other information, or a subset thereof can be transmitted from the vehicle so that the tele-operator can have sufficient information to determine a response.”];
determine, among the set of remote operators, an availability of a remote operator;
determine a status of the remote operator, the status [the limitation is interpreted as determine if an operator is available, this interpretation is based on available meaning the operator is unoccupied (a status which is not defined in the specification) as suggested by the instant application specification [0079],
then see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
determine criteria associated with the remote operator [see at least [0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
determine, based at least in part on the information, the availability, the status, and the criteria, to send the request to the remote operator [see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0027] “Based on the risk, the AV can perform a response whereby the AV can, if the risk is less than a risk threshold, (a) autonomously go around the obstruction in normal manner; or if the risk is not less than the risk threshold, (b) contact a tele-operator for assistance. For ease of reference, the responses (a)-(b) can be referred to, respectively, as a normal response, and an assistance response. As such, the possible responses of the AV to an obstruction can include a wait response, a normal response, and an assistance response.”;
[0028] “In the case of a wait response, the AV comes to a complete stop and can re-evaluate the situation over time. Depending on how the situation changes over time, the AV can either continue to wait, autonomy go around the obstruction, or contact a tele-operator. In an example, if the obstruction situation does not resolve itself within a predefined period of time, the AV can perform an assistance response”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
send the request to a device of the remote operator to cause display of the request to the remote operator [see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”;
[0063] “The operations center 2400 may include one or more computing devices, which are able to exchange (send or receive) data from: vehicles such as the vehicle 2100;”;
[0131] “FIG. 7 is an illustration of user interfaces 700 of a tele-operator according to implementations of this disclosure. The user interfaces 700 are mere illustrative examples of visual information that a tele-operator may need in order to respond to the request. One or more of the user interfaces 700 can be displayed (or available for display) to a tele-operator. The user interfaces 700 include a map view 702, an augmented view 704, and a dashcam view 706. However, the user interfaces 700 can include more, fewer, or other user interfaces and/or information that can aid the tele-operator in responding to the received request.”;
[0136] “FIG. 8 is an illustration of a ticket 800 according to implementations of this disclosure. The ticket 800 illustrates an example of what may be presented to a tele-operator at a tele-operations center in response to an AV initiating a request for tele-operator assistance. The ticket 800 includes an exception description 802, occupancy information 804, destination information 806, feature information 808, and an action button 810. In some implementations, more, fewer, other information or actions, or a combination thereof can be displayed in the ticket.”];
determine assistance provided by the remote operator, the assistance associated with an at least partially defined path for the autonomous vehicle; and
transmit, to the autonomous vehicle, the assistance, wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to collaborate with the remote operator to plan a trajectory based at least in part on the assistance, and wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the trajectory [for the limitations above, see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”
[0145-0146] “By selecting a menu option 902 (i.e., “Authorize”), the tele-operator authorizes to AV to proceed along the second trajectory that is proposed by the AV. That is, the technique 500 receives a response to proceed. By selecting a menu option 904 (i.e., “Reject”), the tele-operator instructs the AV to continue to wait (e.g., halt in place to await further instructions). That is, the technique 500 receives a response to wait. By selecting a menu option 906, the tele-operator can select (e.g., draw, define, etc.) a new route (i.e., a third trajectory) to be followed by the AV.
Referring again to FIG. 5, at 512, the technique 500 receives a response (i.e., a received response) from the tele-operator. As already mentioned, the response can be one of a first response to wait, a second response to proceed, or a third response that includes a trajectory.”].
Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Hambridge discloses
determine a status of the remote operator, the status comprising a designation of whether the remote operator is on a break [see at least [0032-0033, 0046] determine candidate status such as at lunch;
[0032] “For example, if the location information indicates the candidate is located in his/her office, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is working, and thus presently available. If the location information indicates the candidate is located in a break room, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is on break, and thus not presently available. If the location information indicates the candidate is located in a conference room, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is in a conference, and thus not presently available.”;
[0033] “Thus, the sensor data 175 can indicate, for each candidate in the candidate pool 160, whether the candidate is at home, in the office, at a movie theater, in a restaurant, in a break room, in a conference room, in the candidate's office, etc.”;
[0046] “The on-call management application 150 can determine the value for the weighted score 230 based on historical data. In illustration, the on-call management application 150 can determine how long the candidate has been present at the candidate's current location and, based on that determination and historical data, determine when the candidate will become available to respond to issues. For example, if the user profile 165 of the candidate indicates that the candidate usually takes one hour for lunch, the candidate is at a restaurant during lunchtime, and the candidate has been in the restaurant for forty-five minutes, the on-call management application 150 can infer that the candidate soon will be heading back to the office and be available in the office within the next fifteen minutes.”;
[0030, 0047] status set by candidate such as at a conference (training) “If a candidate currently is at a location and/or attending an event for which the candidate's user profile 165 indicates that the candidate chooses not to participate in the resolution of issues when the candidate is in the location and/or attending the event,”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen with Hambridge to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Hambridge. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer such as based on the operator’s skills [see at least Mertens [0002, 0010, 0028] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen and b) Hambridge and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pedersen in view of Hambridge doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Chan discloses
associate, based at least in part on the information, the request with a queue of operator requests from amonq a plurality of queues of operator requests, where the queue is associated with a set of operators [see at least [0154-0155] “Block 800 may involve assigning, by a computing device of a computational instance disposed within a remote network management platform, a first group of agents to address work items in a first queue of a plurality of queues.
Block 802 may involve assigning, by the computing device, a second group of agents to address work items in the first queue and a second queue of the plurality of queues. The second group of agents may prioritize addressing work items in the second queue over addressing work items in the first queue.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen in view of Hambridge with Chan to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Chan. Doing so would further define Pedersen in view of Hambridge’s (Pedersen) [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer such as based on the operator’s queue processing [see at least Chan [0002-0003, 0154-0155] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen in view of Hambridge and b) Chan and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Hambridge and Chan as applied to claim(s) 1 above and further in view of Mertens (US 12,158,756 B1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 19 below and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 3, modified Pedersen teaches the remote operations system of claim 1, the remote operations system.
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
being further configured to:
receive, from the device, a response associated with accepting the request; and
determine that the response was received within a threshold amount of time,
wherein determining to send the remote operator the request is based at least in part on determining that the response was received within a threshold amount of time [for the limitations above, see at least [col 18 ln 35-56] “At operation 412, the process 400 includes receiving an operator response in response to selecting the remote operator at operation 408. The remote operator may accept the request, reject the request, or indicate the request should be dropped from the queue. The remote operator may accept the request and proceed to operation 416 to handle the request. When the remote operator rejects the request, the request is returned to the queue with increased priority at operation 420. In some examples, the request may be considered rejected in an event where the remote operator does not respond within a threshold period of time. The request may be returned to the queue in response to the request timing out or being affirmatively rejected by the remote operator as described above.”;
[col 19 ln 10-25] “At operation 416, the process 400 includes conveying the request to the available remote operator.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 4, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 9, 11, and 18 below and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 22, modified Pedersen teaches the remote operations system of claim 1, .
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
wherein associating the request with the queue of remote operator requests comprises determining, based at least in part on the information associated with the request, a priority of the request, and wherein determining to send the request to the remote operator is further based on the priority [see at least [col 4-5 respectively ln 59-67 and 1-10] “The remote operation system 148 includes a request queue 158 and operators 160. The request queue 158 includes a series of requests for remote operations from vehicles in a fleet of autonomous vehicles. The requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on priority for each of the requests. … The request queue 158 may be ordered based on priority for each of the requests, the priority based on one or more factors described herein.”;
[col 1-2 respectively ln 65-67 and 1-15] “The remote operator requests may be prioritized based on safety considerations, such as a vehicle operating speed (e.g., highway operation versus city street operation), occupancy status of the vehicle (occupied or vacant, number of occupants, etc.), length of ride, traffic volume, or other factors.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Hambridge and Nath et al. (US 2015/0317582 A1).
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), Pedersen teaches a method, comprising [see at least [0053, 0056, 0068] operations center 2400, vehicles 2100 (340-370), server 2500;
[0068] fleet of vehicles]:
receiving, from a vehicle, a request to provide remote operator assistance;
associating the request with a queue [for the limitations above, see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”;
[0128-0130] “The request can include information (e.g., state data) that can be useful to a tele-operator in responding to the request. …
The state data can include, but is not limited to, data that indicates the state or condition of the vehicle that is executing the technique 500, including any of kinetic state data relating to any of the velocity and acceleration of a vehicle, location data, including the geographical location of a vehicle (e.g., the latitude and longitude of the vehicle) or the location of the vehicle with respect to another object, vehicle position, including the orientation and inclination (e.g., slope of the vehicle on an incline) of the vehicle, the operational state of the vehicle, including the electrical state or mechanical state of the vehicle (e.g., health of the electrical vehicle systems, mechanical vehicle systems, tire pressure, etc.), maintenance data related to maintenance of the vehicle, energy source data including an amount of fuel remaining or an amount of battery charge remaining, sensor data based on outputs from sensors including, optical sensors, audio sensors, an motion sensors, internal state data, including a temperature and humidity inside the passenger cabin of the vehicle, and a current task (e.g., pick up a passenger) of the vehicle.
The transmitted information can also include state information of other road users that are maintained in a world model module, such as the world model module 402 of FIG. 4. For example, state of an object that is, or is a part of, the obstruction, and/or the state of other objects proximal to the vehicle can be included in the transmitted information. For example, zero or more of a velocity, a pose, a geometry (such as width, height, and depth), a classification (e.g., bicycle, large truck, pedestrian, road sign, etc.), a location, other information, or a subset thereof can be transmitted from the vehicle so that the tele-operator can have sufficient information to determine a response.”];
determining, among a set of available remote operators, a status set by a remote operator to resolve the request [the limitation is interpreted as determine if an operator is available, this interpretation is based on available meaning the operator is unoccupied (a status which is not defined in the specification) as suggested by the instant application specification [0079],
then see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
determining criteria associated with the remote operator;
the remote operator [for the limitations above, see at least [0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
determining, based at least in part on the request, an updated status, and the criteria, to receive remote operator assistance from the remote operator [see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0027] “Based on the risk, the AV can perform a response whereby the AV can, if the risk is less than a risk threshold, (a) autonomously go around the obstruction in normal manner; or if the risk is not less than the risk threshold, (b) contact a tele-operator for assistance. For ease of reference, the responses (a)-(b) can be referred to, respectively, as a normal response, and an assistance response. As such, the possible responses of the AV to an obstruction can include a wait response, a normal response, and an assistance response.”;
[0028] “In the case of a wait response, the AV comes to a complete stop and can re-evaluate the situation over time. Depending on how the situation changes over time, the AV can either continue to wait, autonomy go around the obstruction, or contact a tele-operator. In an example, if the obstruction situation does not resolve itself within a predefined period of time, the AV can perform an assistance response”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
sending information associated with the request to the remote operator [see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”;
[0063] “The operations center 2400 may include one or more computing devices, which are able to exchange (send or receive) data from: vehicles such as the vehicle 2100;”;
[0131] “FIG. 7 is an illustration of user interfaces 700 of a tele-operator according to implementations of this disclosure. The user interfaces 700 are mere illustrative examples of visual information that a tele-operator may need in order to respond to the request. One or more of the user interfaces 700 can be displayed (or available for display) to a tele-operator. The user interfaces 700 include a map view 702, an augmented view 704, and a dashcam view 706. However, the user interfaces 700 can include more, fewer, or other user interfaces and/or information that can aid the tele-operator in responding to the received request.”;
[0136] “FIG. 8 is an illustration of a ticket 800 according to implementations of this disclosure. The ticket 800 illustrates an example of what may be presented to a tele-operator at a tele-operations center in response to an AV initiating a request for tele-operator assistance. The ticket 800 includes an exception description 802, occupancy information 804, destination information 806, feature information 808, and an action button 810. In some implementations, more, fewer, other information or actions, or a combination thereof can be displayed in the ticket.”]; and
transmitting the remote operator assistance to the vehicle,
wherein the vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the remote operator assistance [for the limitations above, see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”
[0145-0146] “By selecting a menu option 902 (i.e., “Authorize”), the tele-operator authorizes to AV to proceed along the second trajectory that is proposed by the AV. That is, the technique 500 receives a response to proceed. By selecting a menu option 904 (i.e., “Reject”), the tele-operator instructs the AV to continue to wait (e.g., halt in place to await further instructions). That is, the technique 500 receives a response to wait. By selecting a menu option 906, the tele-operator can select (e.g., draw, define, etc.) a new route (i.e., a third trajectory) to be followed by the AV.
Referring again to FIG. 5, at 512, the technique 500 receives a response (i.e., a received response) from the tele-operator. As already mentioned, the response can be one of a first response to wait, a second response to proceed, or a third response that includes a trajectory.”].
Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Hambridge discloses
determining, among a set of available remote operators, a status set by a remote operator to resolve the request [see at least [0032-0033, 0046] determine candidate status such as at lunch;
[0032] “For example, if the location information indicates the candidate is located in his/her office, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is working, and thus presently available. If the location information indicates the candidate is located in a break room, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is on break, and thus not presently available. If the location information indicates the candidate is located in a conference room, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is in a conference, and thus not presently available.”;
[0033] “Thus, the sensor data 175 can indicate, for each candidate in the candidate pool 160, whether the candidate is at home, in the office, at a movie theater, in a restaurant, in a break room, in a conference room, in the candidate's office, etc.”;
[0046] “The on-call management application 150 can determine the value for the weighted score 230 based on historical data. In illustration, the on-call management application 150 can determine how long the candidate has been present at the candidate's current location and, based on that determination and historical data, determine when the candidate will become available to respond to issues. For example, if the user profile 165 of the candidate indicates that the candidate usually takes one hour for lunch, the candidate is at a restaurant during lunchtime, and the candidate has been in the restaurant for forty-five minutes, the on-call management application 150 can infer that the candidate soon will be heading back to the office and be available in the office within the next fifteen minutes.”;
[0030, 0047] status set by candidate such as at a conference (training) “If a candidate currently is at a location and/or attending an event for which the candidate's user profile 165 indicates that the candidate chooses not to participate in the resolution of issues when the candidate is in the location and/or attending the event,”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen with Hambridge to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Hambridge. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer such as based on the operator’s skills [see at least Mertens [0002, 0010, 0028] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen and b) Hambridge and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pedersen in view of Hambridge doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Nate discloses
monitorinq a response time of the operator and updating, based at least in part on the response time meeting or exceedinq a threshold, the status [see at least [0028] “The task recommendation module 130 then recommends or presents those task bundles to specific workers. In the case that workers receiving task or task bundle recommendations do not accept the recommended tasks within some period time (e.g., a task acceptance round), the task recommendation module will then recommend some or all of those tasks to alternate workers in subsequent rounds.”;
[0029] “The worker model generation module 180 also update the learned worker models 135 over time when additional observations (e.g., task completions, worker history, etc.) become available.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen in view of Hambridge with Nate to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Nate. Doing so would further define Pedersen in view of Hambridge’s (Pedersen) [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer such as based on the operator’s status learned from observations [see at least Nate [0028-0029] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen in view of Hambridge and b) Nate and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 7, modified Pedersen teaches the method of claim 6,
and Pedersen teaches wherein the mission type indicates at least one of:
whether the vehicle is transporting a passenger, whether the vehicle is traveling to pick up an additional passengers, whether the vehicle is charging, or whether the vehicle is performing training; wherein the status indicates whether the remote operator is occupied to receive requests for providing the remote operator assistance [see at least [0128-0130] “The request can include information (e.g., state data) that can be useful to a tele-operator in responding to the request. …
The state data can include, but is not limited to, data that indicates the state or condition of the vehicle that is executing the technique 500, including … a current task (e.g., pick up a passenger) of the vehicle.”].
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Hambridge and Nath as applied to claim(s) 5 above and further in view of Mertens (US 12,158,756 B1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Pedersen teaches the method of claim 5, .
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
wherein the criteria indicates at least one of:
a geographical area in which the remote operator is knowledgeable for providing a response to the request,
a vehicle type that the remote operator is knowledgeable for providing the response,
a type of the remote operator assistance that the remote operator provides, or
a mission type associated with autonomous vehicles [see at least [col 17-18 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-15] “At operation 408, the process 400 includes identifying a suitable remote operator. The suitable remote operator may be identified based on filters including experience level, certification, number of requests processed, experience with a situation, and other such filters described herein. … In some examples, the operation 408 includes identifying one or more remote operators having credentials or experience matching or meeting one or more requirements of the remote operation request. The credentials of the remote operators may be accessed to filter the remote operators to identify remote operators capable of handling the request. In some examples, the filters may include filters for availability, e.g., not presently handling a request or otherwise unavailable, filters for vehicle types, filters for experience level, filters for experience with particular locations or environments, and other such filters. By applying such filters, one or more remote operators may be identified to handle one or more requests from the queue. The filters may include mission status information, for example for demonstration purposes, especially valuable cargo or personnel, weather conditions, and other such filters. In some examples, the filters applied to the queue may be focused on the vehicle and vehicle conditions while other filters for remote operators may also be applied in other examples including tiers of remote operators, experience levels, number of requests processed by remote operators, and other user-defined filters applied by each remote operator. In some examples, user-defined filters may be customizable for input or selection by the remote operators, for example to only view remote operation requests for selection based on their customized preferences.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, modified Pedersen teaches the method of claim 9, .
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
further comprising:
determining, for a plurality of remote operators, an availability of individual remote operators; and
determining, based at least in part on the availability of the individual remote operators, the set of available remote operators [see at least [col 1-2 respectively ln 65-67 and 1-15] “In some examples, the requests and available remote operators may be matched by filtering available remote operators based on details of the request such as a vehicle type, environment location, passenger status (e.g., whether passengers are in the vehicle or not), and other such information.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define modified Pedersen’s (Pedersen) [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, modified Pedersen teaches the method of claim 5, .
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
wherein the status comprises:
a designation of whether the remote operator is providing remote operator assistance to another vehicle [see at least [col 1-2 respectively ln 65-67 and 1-15] “In some examples, the requests and available remote operators may be matched by filtering available remote operators based on details of the request such as a vehicle type, environment location, passenger status (e.g., whether passengers are in the vehicle or not), and other such information.”;
[col 17-18 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-15] “At operation 408, the process 400 includes identifying a suitable remote operator. In some examples, the filters may include filters for availability, e.g., not presently handling a request or otherwise unavailable”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 13, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 19 below and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim(s) 14, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 20 below and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Hambridge and Nath as applied to claim(s) 5 above and further in view of Sasaki (US 2022/0217237 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 12, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 16 below and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0310417 A1) in view of Hambridge et al. (US 2018/0330304 A1) and Chan et al. (US 2021/0142244 A1).
Regarding claim 15 (currently amended), Pedersen teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising [see at least [0053, 0056, 0068] operations center 2400, vehicles 2100 (340-370), server 2500;
[0068] fleet of vehicles]:
receiving, from a vehicle, a request to provide remote operator assistance;
associating the request with a queue [for the limitations above, see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”;
[0128-0130] “The request can include information (e.g., state data) that can be useful to a tele-operator in responding to the request. …
The state data can include, but is not limited to, data that indicates the state or condition of the vehicle that is executing the technique 500, including any of kinetic state data relating to any of the velocity and acceleration of a vehicle, location data, including the geographical location of a vehicle (e.g., the latitude and longitude of the vehicle) or the location of the vehicle with respect to another object, vehicle position, including the orientation and inclination (e.g., slope of the vehicle on an incline) of the vehicle, the operational state of the vehicle, including the electrical state or mechanical state of the vehicle (e.g., health of the electrical vehicle systems, mechanical vehicle systems, tire pressure, etc.), maintenance data related to maintenance of the vehicle, energy source data including an amount of fuel remaining or an amount of battery charge remaining, sensor data based on outputs from sensors including, optical sensors, audio sensors, an motion sensors, internal state data, including a temperature and humidity inside the passenger cabin of the vehicle, and a current task (e.g., pick up a passenger) of the vehicle.
The transmitted information can also include state information of other road users that are maintained in a world model module, such as the world model module 402 of FIG. 4. For example, state of an object that is, or is a part of, the obstruction, and/or the state of other objects proximal to the vehicle can be included in the transmitted information. For example, zero or more of a velocity, a pose, a geometry (such as width, height, and depth), a classification (e.g., bicycle, large truck, pedestrian, road sign, etc.), a location, other information, or a subset thereof can be transmitted from the vehicle so that the tele-operator can have sufficient information to determine a response.”];
determining, among a set of available remote operators, a status of a remote operator to resolve the request, the status [the limitation is interpreted as determine if an operator is available, this interpretation is based on available meaning the operator is unoccupied (a status which is not defined in the specification) as suggested by the instant application specification [0079],
then see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
determining criteria associated with the remote operator [see at least [0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”];
determining, based at least in part on the request, the status, other data, and the criteria, to receive remote operator assistance from the remote operator [see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0027] “Based on the risk, the AV can perform a response whereby the AV can, if the risk is less than a risk threshold, (a) autonomously go around the obstruction in normal manner; or if the risk is not less than the risk threshold, (b) contact a tele-operator for assistance. For ease of reference, the responses (a)-(b) can be referred to, respectively, as a normal response, and an assistance response. As such, the possible responses of the AV to an obstruction can include a wait response, a normal response, and an assistance response.”;
[0028] “In the case of a wait response, the AV comes to a complete stop and can re-evaluate the situation over time. Depending on how the situation changes over time, the AV can either continue to wait, autonomy go around the obstruction, or contact a tele-operator. In an example, if the obstruction situation does not resolve itself within a predefined period of time, the AV can perform an assistance response”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”]; and
sending information associated with the request to the remote operator [see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”;
[0063] “The operations center 2400 may include one or more computing devices, which are able to exchange (send or receive) data from: vehicles such as the vehicle 2100;”;
[0131] “FIG. 7 is an illustration of user interfaces 700 of a tele-operator according to implementations of this disclosure. The user interfaces 700 are mere illustrative examples of visual information that a tele-operator may need in order to respond to the request. One or more of the user interfaces 700 can be displayed (or available for display) to a tele-operator. The user interfaces 700 include a map view 702, an augmented view 704, and a dashcam view 706. However, the user interfaces 700 can include more, fewer, or other user interfaces and/or information that can aid the tele-operator in responding to the received request.”;
[0136] “FIG. 8 is an illustration of a ticket 800 according to implementations of this disclosure. The ticket 800 illustrates an example of what may be presented to a tele-operator at a tele-operations center in response to an AV initiating a request for tele-operator assistance. The ticket 800 includes an exception description 802, occupancy information 804, destination information 806, feature information 808, and an action button 810. In some implementations, more, fewer, other information or actions, or a combination thereof can be displayed in the ticket.”]; and
transmitting, as processor-executable instructions and via a network interface device associated with the remote operator, the remote operator assistance to the vehicle,
wherein the vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the remote operator assistance {transmit, to the autonomous vehicle, the assistance, wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to plan a trajectory based at least in part on the assistance - claim 1} [for the limitations above, see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”
[0145-0146] “By selecting a menu option 902 (i.e., “Authorize”), the tele-operator authorizes to AV to proceed along the second trajectory that is proposed by the AV. That is, the technique 500 receives a response to proceed. By selecting a menu option 904 (i.e., “Reject”), the tele-operator instructs the AV to continue to wait (e.g., halt in place to await further instructions). That is, the technique 500 receives a response to wait. By selecting a menu option 906, the tele-operator can select (e.g., draw, define, etc.) a new route (i.e., a third trajectory) to be followed by the AV.
Referring again to FIG. 5, at 512, the technique 500 receives a response (i.e., a received response) from the tele-operator. As already mentioned, the response can be one of a first response to wait, a second response to proceed, or a third response that includes a trajectory.”;
[0053-0055] “For example, the vehicle 2100 or the external object 2110 may receive information, such as information representing the transportation network 2200, from the operations center 2400 via the electronic communication network 2300.
The operations center 2400 includes a controller apparatus 2410 which includes some or all of the features of the controller 1300 shown in FIG. 1. The controller apparatus 2410 can monitor and coordinate the movement of vehicles, including autonomous vehicles. …
Further, the controller apparatus 2410 can establish remote control over one or more vehicles, such as the vehicle 2100, or external objects, such as the external object 2110. In this way, the controller apparatus 2410 may tele-operate the vehicles or external objects from a remote location.”;
Fig. 7 and [0131] “FIG. 7 is an illustration of user interfaces 700 of a tele-operator according to implementations of this disclosure. The user interfaces 700 are mere illustrative examples of visual information that a tele-operator may need in order to respond to the request.”].
Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Hambridge discloses
determining, among a set of available remote operators, a status of a remote operator to resolve the request, the status comprising a designation of whether the remote operator is in training [see at least [0032-0033, 0046] determine candidate status such as at lunch;
[0032] “For example, if the location information indicates the candidate is located in his/her office, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is working, and thus presently available. If the location information indicates the candidate is located in a break room, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is on break, and thus not presently available. If the location information indicates the candidate is located in a conference room, it can be inferred that the candidate presently is in a conference, and thus not presently available.”;
[0033] “Thus, the sensor data 175 can indicate, for each candidate in the candidate pool 160, whether the candidate is at home, in the office, at a movie theater, in a restaurant, in a break room, in a conference room, in the candidate's office, etc.”;
[0046] “The on-call management application 150 can determine the value for the weighted score 230 based on historical data. In illustration, the on-call management application 150 can determine how long the candidate has been present at the candidate's current location and, based on that determination and historical data, determine when the candidate will become available to respond to issues. For example, if the user profile 165 of the candidate indicates that the candidate usually takes one hour for lunch, the candidate is at a restaurant during lunchtime, and the candidate has been in the restaurant for forty-five minutes, the on-call management application 150 can infer that the candidate soon will be heading back to the office and be available in the office within the next fifteen minutes.”;
[0030, 0047] status set by candidate such as at a conference (training) “If a candidate currently is at a location and/or attending an event for which the candidate's user profile 165 indicates that the candidate chooses not to participate in the resolution of issues when the candidate is in the location and/or attending the event,”];
determining a workload balance of the set of available remote operators;
determining, based at least in part on the request, the status, the workload balance, and the criteria, to receive remote operator assistance from the remote operator [see at least [0055] “In one arrangement, the on-call management application 150 can include a frequency selection limiter 250. The on-call management application 150 can use the frequency selection limiter 250 to limit a frequency at which candidates are chosen as selected candidates 210. In illustration, it can be cumbersome for certain candidates to be selected too frequently. The frequency selection limiter 250 can be used to balance the response workloads across the candidate pool 160, for example based on a frequency at which the candidate has been requested to respond to previous issues and/or a last time the candidate was requested to respond to a previous issue.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen with Hambridge to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Hambridge. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer such as based on the operator’s skills [see at least Mertens [0002, 0010, 0028] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen and b) Hambridge and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, modified Pedersen teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15,
and Pedersen teaches the actions further comprising:
receiving, from the remote operator, the remote operator assistance; and
transmitting, to the vehicle, the remote operator assistance,
wherein the vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the remote operator assistance [for the limitations above, see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”
[0145-0146] “By selecting a menu option 902 (i.e., “Authorize”), the tele-operator authorizes to AV to proceed along the second trajectory that is proposed by the AV. That is, the technique 500 receives a response to proceed. By selecting a menu option 904 (i.e., “Reject”), the tele-operator instructs the AV to continue to wait (e.g., halt in place to await further instructions). That is, the technique 500 receives a response to wait. By selecting a menu option 906, the tele-operator can select (e.g., draw, define, etc.) a new route (i.e., a third trajectory) to be followed by the AV.
Referring again to FIG. 5, at 512, the technique 500 receives a response (i.e., a received response) from the tele-operator. As already mentioned, the response can be one of a first response to wait, a second response to proceed, or a third response that includes a trajectory.”].
Regarding claim 21, modified Pedersen teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15,
and Pedersen teaches the request comprising an event type, and wherein determining to request the remote operator assistance from the remote operator is further based at least in part on the event type [see at least [0020] “When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. The tele-operator may be one of many tele-operators that are available at a tele-operation center (i.e., a remote vehicle assistance center) where each tele-operator can monitor the state or condition of one or more AVs.”;
[0032] “In an implementation, the assistance response can be in the form of an issuance by the AV of a ticket. The ticket can be assigned to a tele-operator at the tele-operation center. The ticket can be assigned to a specific tele-operator who may be selected based on expertise of the tele-operator, a geographical location of the AV, state information of the AV, information regarding the obstruction situation, or some other criteria. In another implementation, the ticket may be placed in a first-in-first-out queue and is assigned to a next available tele-operator.”;
[0128-0130] “The request can include information (e.g., state data) that can be useful to a tele-operator in responding to the request. …
The state data can include, but is not limited to, data that indicates the state or condition of the vehicle that is executing the technique 500, including any of kinetic state data relating to any of the velocity and acceleration of a vehicle, location data, including the geographical location of a vehicle (e.g., the latitude and longitude of the vehicle) or the location of the vehicle with respect to another object, vehicle position, including the orientation and inclination (e.g., slope of the vehicle on an incline) of the vehicle, the operational state of the vehicle, including the electrical state or mechanical state of the vehicle (e.g., health of the electrical vehicle systems, mechanical vehicle systems, tire pressure, etc.), maintenance data related to maintenance of the vehicle, energy source data including an amount of fuel remaining or an amount of battery charge remaining, sensor data based on outputs from sensors including, optical sensors, audio sensors, an motion sensors, internal state data, including a temperature and humidity inside the passenger cabin of the vehicle, and a current task (e.g., pick up a passenger) of the vehicle.
The transmitted information can also include state information of other road users that are maintained in a world model module, such as the world model module 402 of FIG. 4. For example, state of an object that is, or is a part of, the obstruction, and/or the state of other objects proximal to the vehicle can be included in the transmitted information. For example, zero or more of a velocity, a pose, a geometry (such as width, height, and depth), a classification (e.g., bicycle, large truck, pedestrian, road sign, etc.), a location, other information, or a subset thereof can be transmitted from the vehicle so that the tele-operator can have sufficient information to determine a response.”].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Hambridge as applied to claim(s) 15 above and further in view of Sasaki (US 2022/0217237 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pedersen teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, the actions further comprising:
and Pedersen teaches the method further comprising:
determining that the remote operator accepted the request; and
the remote operator is while providing the remote operator assistance to the vehicle [for the limitations above, see at least [0106, 0153-0154] “At 1008, the technique 1008 determines a risk associated with the first trajectory. The risk can be determined by a risk evaluation module, such as risk evaluation module 408 of FIG. 4. If the risk exceeds a risk threshold, the technique 1000 proceeds to 1012; otherwise, the technique 1000 can proceed to 1018.
At 1012, the technique 1000 initiates a request to a tele-operator. Initiating the request can be as described with respect to 508 of FIG. 5. As such, the request can include the first trajectory. At 1014, the technique 1000 waits for a response from the tele-operator. That is, the technique 1000 can halt, or cause the AV to be halted, while waiting for a response from the tele-operator.”;
[0145-0146] “By selecting a menu option 902 (i.e., “Authorize”), the tele-operator authorizes to AV to proceed along the second trajectory that is proposed by the AV. That is, the technique 500 receives a response to proceed. By selecting a menu option 904 (i.e., “Reject”), the tele-operator instructs the AV to continue to wait (e.g., halt in place to await further instructions). That is, the technique 500 receives a response to wait. By selecting a menu option 906, the tele-operator can select (e.g., draw, define, etc.) a new route (i.e., a third trajectory) to be followed by the AV.
Referring again to FIG. 5, at 512, the technique 500 receives a response (i.e., a received response) from the tele-operator. As already mentioned, the response can be one of a first response to wait, a second response to proceed, or a third response that includes a trajectory.”].
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Sasaki discloses
updating the status of the remote operator to indicate the remote operator is unavailable to receive additional requests while providing the remote operator assistance to the vehicle [see at least [0032] “When the operator terminal 30 is connected to any of the AD vehicles 10 and when the connection is broken, the operator terminal 30 gives notification thereof to the remote assistance apparatus 20. As a result, an assigning unit 22 of the remote assistance apparatus 20 can ascertain which of the plurality of operator terminals 30 are in operation, which are on standby, that is, which operators are available, and how many operators are available.”;
[0078] “When an operator is available (“Yes” at step S83), the assigning unit 22 assigns the call of which the waiting period exceeds the maximum waiting period UL to the available operator (step S84). When an operator is not available (“No” at step S83), the assigning unit 22 monitors availability state of the operators until an operator becomes available (step S83). When assignment of an operator to a certain call (step S84) is completed, the assigning unit 22 determines whether another call of which the waiting period exceeds the maximum waiting period UL is present (step S85).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Pedersen with Sasaki to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Sasaki. Doing so would further define modified Pedersen’s (Pedersen) [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Sasaki [0003] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Pedersen and b) Sasaki and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Hambridge as applied to claim(s) 15 above and further in view of Mertens (US 12,158,756 B1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Pedersen teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, .
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
wherein the remote operator is a first remote operator, the status is a first status, the method further comprising:
determining, among the set of available remote operators, a second status of a second remote operator to resolve the request; and
determining, based at least in part on the second status, that the second remote operator is occupied,
wherein sending the request to the first remote operator is further based at least in part on the second remote operator being occupied [for the limitations above, see at least [col 1-2 respectively ln 65-67 and 1-15] “In some examples, the requests and available remote operators may be matched by filtering available remote operators based on details of the request such as a vehicle type, environment location, passenger status (e.g., whether passengers are in the vehicle or not), and other such information.”;
[col 17-18 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-15] “At operation 408, the process 400 includes identifying a suitable remote operator. In some examples, the filters may include filters for availability, e.g., not presently handling a request or otherwise unavailable”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define modified Pedersen’s (Pedersen) [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, modified Pedersen teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim of claim 15, .
Modified Pedersen doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mertens discloses
wherein determining the remote operator comprises:
filtering, using a first filter associated with a mission-type, the set of available remote operators to determine a first portion of the set of available remote operators; and
filtering, using a second filter associated with a geographical area, the first portion to determine a second portion of the set of available remote operators,
wherein the remote operator is associated with the second portion [for the limitations above, see at least [col 17-18 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-15] “At operation 408, the process 400 includes identifying a suitable remote operator. The suitable remote operator may be identified based on filters including experience level, certification, number of requests processed, experience with a situation, and other such filters described herein. … In some examples, the operation 408 includes identifying one or more remote operators having credentials or experience matching or meeting one or more requirements of the remote operation request. The credentials of the remote operators may be accessed to filter the remote operators to identify remote operators capable of handling the request. In some examples, the filters may include filters for availability, e.g., not presently handling a request or otherwise unavailable, filters for vehicle types, filters for experience level, filters for experience with particular locations or environments, and other such filters. By applying such filters, one or more remote operators may be identified to handle one or more requests from the queue. The filters may include mission status information, for example for demonstration purposes, especially valuable cargo or personnel, weather conditions, and other such filters. In some examples, the filters applied to the queue may be focused on the vehicle and vehicle conditions while other filters for remote operators may also be applied in other examples including tiers of remote operators, experience levels, number of requests processed by remote operators, and other user-defined filters applied by each remote operator. In some examples, user-defined filters may be customizable for input or selection by the remote operators, for example to only view remote operation requests for selection based on their customized preferences.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen with Mertens to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mertens. Doing so would further define Pedersen’s [0002] decision making on when an autonomous vehicle might benefit from assistance of a human operator by via further defining what assistance a human operator can offer [see at least Mertens [col 1 ln 5-15] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Pedersen and b) Mertens and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights