DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 19 September 2025. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-16, 20-22 & 24-28 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 6-7, 9, 11,17-19 & 23 have been cancelled. Claim 27-28 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 22-23 under 35 USC 112 (a) as set forth in the office action of 26 November 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 22-23 under 35 USC 112 (a) as set forth in the office action of 26 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1, 16, 22-23 and 26 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 26 November 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, 16, 22-23 and 26 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 26 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
The cited references Eggenberger, Stefan, and Huang, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose or render obvious at least the aforementioned features of claim 1.
Eggenberger at most describes a scenario in which a remote pilot is assigned to a group of vehicles. If a subgroup of vehicles within the assigned group of vehicles has an emergency or anomalous sensor reading, then that subgroup of vehicles is reassigned. See Eggenberger, para. 88. Eggenberger describes a completely different scenario and opposite operation compared to Applicant's claim 1.
Assume, arguendo, that the emergency or anomalous sensor reading described in Eggenberger corresponds to Applicant's recited help request for the first vehicle, without conceding the propriety of this assumption. With this assumption, Eggenberger at most describes reassigning the first vehicle. Eggenberger does not disclose or suggest reassigning a second vehicle, as recited in Applicant's claim 1.
Additionally, Eggenberger fails to disclose or suggest that the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help requests, as recited in Applicant's claim 1. In contrast, because the emergency or anomalous vehicle likely requires urgent assistance, Eggenberger would likely implement a higher reassignment priority compared to other help requests, not a lower reassignment priority. Hypothetically attempting to implement a lower reassignment priority for an emergency or anomalous vehicle would frustrate the very purpose of Eggenberger. Eggenberger describes the need to satisfy certain objectives such as safety objectives during remote operation. See Eggenberger, para. 46, 61, 65. Implementing a lower reassignment priority would likely detract from Eggenberger's safety objectives, because of the possibility of leaving an emergency or anomalous situation unaddressed. MPEP §2143.01 specifies that a proposed modification that renders a prior art system inoperable for its intended purpose cannot support an obviousness rejection. Here, attempting to somehow implement a lower reassignment priority for an emergency or anomalous vehicle would render Eggenberger inoperable for its intended purpose.
Stefan and Huang fail to remedy the deficiencies of Eggenberger and are not relied upon to do so. Stefan is silent regarding reassignment. Huang at most describes that a second vehicle, which was originally assigned to a first human, could be reassigned to a second human. Huang merely describes that reassigning to a second human involves determining whether the second human is qualified to handle the second vehicle. See Huang, paras. 56, 62, 74, and 88- 91. Huang fails to disclose at least the amended features of claim 1, including reassigning a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help requests. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is allowable over Eggenberger, Stefan, and Huang, and as such, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claim 1 be withdrawn.
Independent claim 16 has been amended to recite at least some features similar to claim 1 discussed above. Thus for at least similar reasoning, Applicant respectfully submits that Eggenberger, Stefan, and Huang, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest all of the features of claim 16.
The Examiner’s Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant's arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner agrees that Eggenberger and Stefan do not teach how reassignment of operators is performed as currently indicated in amended claims 1 and 16, however, Examiner believes that the previously cited art of Huang does. Huang teaches that a vehicle request can be received from a vehicle, see [062] “Further still, there may be situations in which a vehicle monitor may need to devote 100% of their attention to a single autonomous vehicle. For example, if a passenger of the autonomous vehicle requests to speak with a vehicle monitor (e.g., to ask a question about their route, to change their destination, or to complain about the condition of the vehicle), the vehicle monitor may need to dedicate 100% of their attention to the conversation. Further, there may be situations in which an autonomous vehicle needs the vehicle monitor to provide guidance. For example, if there is an accident in the roadway and the travel lane is blocked, the autonomous vehicle may request permission from the vehicle monitor to cross a double yellow line to drive around the accident. This may require the vehicle monitor to review camera data to ensure that the autonomous vehicle may safely cross the double yellow line to get around the accident.” In addition, based on the request requiring further attention from an operator, vehicles from a first operator can be reassigned based on a priority/level to other operators that match the needs of the lower priority vehicles, see [092] “As discussed above and for those level-assigned autonomous vehicles that require total supervision, any vehicle monitor that is monitoring a total supervision level-assigned autonomous vehicles may only be monitoring that single total supervision level-assigned autonomous vehicle (and no others). Accordingly and in the event that a level-assigned autonomous vehicle being monitored by a vehicle monitor changes to a total supervision level-assigned autonomous vehicle, monitor assignment process 250 may reassign all of the other level-assigned autonomous vehicles currently being monitored by the vehicle monitor.”
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 26 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 26 November 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Huang has been used instead of the previously cited Eggenberger.
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 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.
In addition, regarding the use of “and/or” in this claim, this phrasing will be interpreted as “or” and the examined limitation above will satisfy the needed requirement.
Claims 1, 12-13, 16, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Eggenberger teaches A computer system for programmatically adjusting assignment of remote operations to vehicles that operate in autonomous or semi-autonomous modes, the computer system comprising (see at least [¶04 & 020]):
memory; and one or more processors that are configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory to (The system includes a memory and a processor. see at least [¶05 & 038]):
when a first operator characteristic of a first remote operator matches a first profile characteristic of a first driver profile and a first real-time characteristic of a first vehicle, add the first vehicle to a first cluster of vehicles controlled by the first remote operator (A remote operator profile/capabilities can match a desired vehicle objective and vehicle status, and as a result add the vehicle to the group of vehicles that a first remote operator controls (the operator belonging to a group of operators). see at least [¶044-049, 051 & 057]);
and in accordance with control by the first remote operator or the second remote operator, cause the first vehicle or the second vehicle to execute a driving action (Remote control by a remote operator can cause the assigned vehicle to perform a desired driving maneuver from a received control signal. see at least [¶067-069]).
Eggenberger does not explicitly teach upon receiving a help request for the first vehicle, reassign a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help requests.
However, Huang does teach upon receiving a help request for the first vehicle, reassign a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help requests (Upon receiving a help request from a vehicle on the road from a first vehicle to a first operator, a second vehicle that was part of the first operators cluster of vehicles can be reassigned to a second operator. The reassignment can be based on the score-based supervision levels of vehicles, with help request that are urgent being given a higher priority compared to other request/vehicles that are already assigned and do not require as much attention/priority from a remote operator. see at least [¶056, 062-078 & 088-092]);
Huang would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assigning remote monitors to vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Stefan to use the technique of upon receiving a help request for the first vehicle, reassign a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help requests as taught by Huang. Doing so would lead to improved workload balancing among remote operators (see at least [¶091]).
Regarding Claim 12, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Eggenberger teaches determine a remote operator action for the first remote operator or the second remote operator (Determining a remote operator action for an operator that may is being monitored. see at least [¶042 & 091-092]);
and provide the first remote operator action to the remote operator or the second remote operator (Providing the remote operator action to the desired operator. see at least [¶042 & 091-092]).
Regarding Claim 13, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Eggenberger teaches determine an effectiveness rate of the first remote operator or the second remote operator (Determine if a remote operator is performing its objectives effectively. see at least [¶042 & 065-066]);
when the effectiveness rate decreases in excess of a threshold value for the first vehicle or the second vehicle, reassign the first vehicle or the second vehicle from the first remote operator or the second remote operator and instruct the first remote operator or the second remote operator to take a break as a remote operator action (When the operator is not meeting the desired objectives, reassign the vehicle to a new operator and instruct the operator to take a break. see at least [¶042, 065-066 & 091-092]).
Regarding Claim 16, Eggenberger teaches A method for programmatically adjusting assignment of remote operations to vehicles that operate in autonomous or semi-autonomous modes, the method comprising (see at least [¶03-04 & 020]):
add the first vehicle to a cluster of vehicles controlled by a first remote operator based on a match of a first operator characteristic of the first remote operator to a first profile characteristic of a first driver profile and a first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle (A remote operator profile/capabilities can match a desired vehicle objective and vehicle status, and as a result add the vehicle to the group of vehicles that a first remote operator controls (the operator belonging to a group of operators). see at least [¶044-049, 051 & 057]);
and in accordance with control by the first remote operator or the second remote operator, causing the first vehicle or the second vehicle to execute a driving action (Remote control by a remote operator can cause the assigned vehicle to perform a desired driving maneuver from a received control signal. see at least [¶067-069]).
Eggenberger does not explicitly teach receiving a help request for the vehicle; in response to receiving the help request, reassigning a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help request.
However, Huang does teach receiving a help request for the vehicle; in response to receiving the help request, reassigning a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help request (Upon receiving a help request from a vehicle on the road from a first vehicle to a first operator, a second vehicle that was part of the first operators cluster of vehicles can be reassigned to a second operator. The reassignment can be based on the score-based supervision levels of vehicles, with help request that are urgent being given a higher priority compared to other request/vehicles that are already assigned and do not require as much attention/priority from a remote operator. see at least [¶056, 062-078 & 088-092]);
Huang would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assigning remote monitors to vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Stefan to use the technique of receiving a help request for the vehicle; in response to receiving the help request, reassigning a second vehicle from the first cluster to a second cluster controlled by a second remote operator based on a reassignment priority of the help request, wherein the reassignment priority of the help request is lower compared to one or more other priorities corresponding to one or more unassigned help request as taught by Huang. Doing so would lead to improved workload balancing among remote operators (see at least [¶091]).
Regarding Claim 21, Eggenberger, Stefan and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Eggenberger teaches wherein causing the first vehicle or the second vehicle to execute a driving action comprises generating a command control signal based on the control by the first remote operator or the second remote operator and executing the command control signal (Remote control by a remote operator can cause the assigned vehicle to perform a desired driving maneuver from a received control signal. see at least [¶067-069]).
Regarding Claim 26, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Huang teaches wherein reassigning control of a second vehicle from the cluster to a second remote operator is based on a closest match;
Huang would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assigning remote monitors to vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Stefan to use the technique of reassigning control of a second vehicle from the cluster to a second remote operator is based on a closest match between a second operator characteristic of the second remote operator and a second real-time characteristic of the second vehicle or the second profile characteristic of the second driver profile, compared to any other operator characteristic of any other remote operator and any other real-time characteristic of any other vehicle or any other profile characteristic of any other driver profile as taught by Huang. Doing so would lead to improved workload balancing among remote operators (see at least [¶091]).
Claims 2, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Stefan (US 20140207535 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huang do not explicitly teach wherein the help request for the first vehicle is associated with a manually-activated switch at the first vehicle.
However, Stefan does teach wherein the help request for the first vehicle is associated with a manually-activated switch at the first vehicle (The help request can be activated with a manual switch/knob in the vehicle. see at least [¶043]).
Stefan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huang to use the technique of having the help request for the first vehicle is associated with a manually-activated switch at the first vehicle as taught by Stefan. Doing so would lead to improving control of remote-controlled vehicles (see at least [¶020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huang do not explicitly teach wherein the first profile characteristic comprises one or more historical propensities associated with one or more navigational behaviors in response to a traffic signal.
However, Stefan does teach wherein the first profile characteristic comprises one or more historical propensities associated with one or more navigational behaviors in response to a traffic signal (A driver preference of a driver of a first vehicle can include previously observed driving behavior/style in response to traffic rules/signals. see at least [¶044, 046, 069, 071-072 & 077]).
Stefan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of having the first profile characteristic comprises one or more historical propensities associated with one or more navigational behaviors in response to a traffic signal as taught by Stefan. Doing so would lead to improving control of remote-controlled vehicles (see at least [¶020]).
Regarding Claim 10, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huang do not explicitly teach wherein the help request is generated by an automated process determining an emergency event.
However, Stefan does teach wherein the help request is generated by an automated process determining an emergency event (An evaluation module can automatically generate a help request for a remote operator when it is determined there is an emergency event. see at least [¶039-041]).
Stefan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huang to use the technique of having the help request is generated by an automated process determining an emergency event as taught by Stefan. Doing so would lead to improving control of remote-controlled vehicles (see at least [¶020]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Okumura (US 20160139594 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Eggenberger and Huan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huan do not explicitly teach wherein the help request for the first vehicle is associated with an automated request determined by the first vehicle.
However, Okumura does teach wherein the help request for the first vehicle is associated with an automated request determined by the first vehicle (The help request of a vehicle can be automatically determined by the vehicle. see at least [¶024-027]).
Okumura would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operation of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of having the help request for the first vehicle is associated with an automated request determined by the first vehicle as taught by Okumura. Doing so would lead to improved navigation of an autonomous vehicle in challenging situations (see at least [¶024]).
Claims 4-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Goldman (US 20240036571 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Eggenberger and Huan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huan do not explicitly teach wherein the first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle comprises a geographic location of the first vehicle and the first operator characteristic comprises a location characteristic with knowledge of the geographic location.
However, Goldman does teach wherein the first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle comprises a geographic location of the first vehicle and the first operator characteristic comprises a location characteristic with knowledge of the geographic location (The current location of a vehicle matches a remote operator profile that has knowledge of the geographic location. see at least [¶016]).
Goldman would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of teleoperations of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of having the first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle comprises a geographic location of the first vehicle and the first operator characteristic comprises a location characteristic with knowledge of the geographic location as taught by Goldman. Doing so would lead to improved organization or teleoperation requests of vehicles (see at least [¶065]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Eggenberger and Huan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huan do not explicitly teach wherein the first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle comprises an emergency event of the first vehicle and the first operator characteristic comprises a mitigation characteristic corresponding to the emergency event.
However, Goldman does teach, wherein the first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle comprises an emergency event of the first vehicle and the first operator characteristic comprises a mitigation characteristic corresponding to the emergency event (An ongoing emergency event in a vehicle is matched with a remote operator that can manage an emergency event. see at least [¶010-011]).
Goldman would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of teleoperations of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of having the first real-time characteristic of the first vehicle comprises an emergency event of the first vehicle and the first operator characteristic comprises a mitigation characteristic corresponding to the emergency event as taught by Goldman. Doing so would lead to improved matching of operators and vehicles (see at least [¶011]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Stefan (US 20140207535 A1) in view of Kang WO2021153843A1 (English Translation) in further view of Ramamohan (“Sinusoidal Model-Based Analysis and Classification of Stressed Speech”).
Regarding Claim 14, Eggenberger and Huang teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huang do not explicitly teach receive audio data associated with a first driver of the first vehicle and adjust a remote operator action to address the stress level.
However, Stefan does teach receive audio data associated with a first driver of the first vehicle (Obtaining audio data of the driver of the vehicle. see at least [¶039-041]);
and adjust a remote operator action to address the stress level (An operator can be asked to take action to address the situation that may be causing a raised stress level. see at least [¶039-041]).
Stefan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huang to use the technique of receiving audio data associated with the driver of the vehicle; and adjust a remote operator action to address the stress level as taught by Stefan. Doing so would lead to improving control of remote-controlled vehicles (see at least [¶020]).
Eggenberger, Stefan and Huan do not explicitly teach apply a Fourier transform to a frequency domain of the audio data; compare the transformed audio data with sinusoids of various frequencies of predetermined stress levels to obtain a magnitude coefficient; compare the magnitude coefficient to a coefficient threshold; when the transformed audio data matches one of the sinusoids of various frequencies of predetermined stress levels, identify a stress level from the predetermined stress levels.
However, Kang does teach apply a Fourier transform to a frequency domain of the audio data (see at least [¶070-071]).
Kang would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger, Stefan and Huan to use the technique of applying a Fourier transform to a frequency domain of the audio data as taught by Kang. Doing so would lead to improving detection of stress in voices (see at least [¶010]).
Furthermore, Ramamohan discloses the necessary for formulas to determine the degree of stress levels in voice samples. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for comparing the transformed audio data with sinusoids of various frequencies of predetermined stress levels to obtain a magnitude coefficient; compare the magnitude coefficient to a coefficient threshold; when the transformed audio data matches one of the sinusoids of various frequencies of predetermined stress levels.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means to compute the degree of stress by comparing human speech with different stress frequencies, as shown by Ramamohan. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Quillin (US 20200041995 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Eggenberger and Huan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huan do not explicitly teach determine a latency of a network between the computer system and the first vehicle; and based on the latency, adjust a remote operator action.
However, Quillin does teach determine a latency of a network between the computer system and the first vehicle; and based on the latency, adjust a remote operator action (Determine a latency between the remote system and vehicle and based on the latency, adjust operator action by notifying the operator of current latency impact. see at least [¶0136-0139]).
Quillin would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of determine a latency of a network between the computer system and the first vehicle; and based on the latency, adjust a remote operator action as taught by Quillin. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle control when latency is present (see at least [¶0138]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Otaka (US 20190384277 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Eggenberger and Huan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huan do not explicitly teach wherein the first driver profile comprises one or more historical propensities of a first driver.
However, Otaka does teach wherein the first driver profile comprises one or more historical propensities of a first driver (The driver profile can have historical propensities/tendencies of a driver. see at least [¶028-033]).
Otaka would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of having the first driver profile comprises one or more historical propensities of a first driver as taught by Otaka. Doing so would lead improve matching of remote operators and vehicles with similar driving styles (see at least [¶0106]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggenberger (US 20240161028 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20210061303 A1) in view of Brooks (US 20230054373 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Eggenberger and Huan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Eggenberger and Huan do not explicitly teach wherein the first operator characteristic comprises a temperament of the first remote operator and reassigning the second vehicle is based on temperament of the second remote operator.
However, Brooks does teach wherein the first operator characteristic comprises a temperament of the first remote operator and reassigning the second vehicle is based on temperament of the second remote operator (Operator characteristics can include operator temperament/state and reassigning vehicles to a second operator can be based on the operator temperament/state. see at least [¶083-085]).
Brooks would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of remote operator assignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Eggenberger and Huan to use the technique of having wherein the first operator characteristic or the second operator characteristic comprises a temperament of the first remote operator or the second remote operator as taught by Brooks. Doing so would lead improve assigning and reassigning of vehicles to operators (see at least [¶083-085]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in- person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published
or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information
in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,
visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for
more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about
filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-
9197(toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-
786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights