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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on ----12/4/2025 for application 18/124,780. Claim 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1, 8 and 14 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 – 9, filed on 12/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on the existing prior arts.
Applicant stated that “Stefan is directed to virtual test drives on a driving simulator. The Office Action contends that Stefan teaches ‘generate a plurality of virtual vehicles linked to the plurality of physical vehicles based on the state information about the plurality of physical vehicles.’ However, Stefan appears to teach generating sensor data that is fed into a virtual vehicle function. Generating vehicle sensor data is not reasonably equivalent to generating a virtual vehicle.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stefan teaches “virtual test drive” system that “carried out in a showroom” and “provide the remote driver with a simulated vehicle environment” while “the real vehicle may drive on a closed test site” (translation page 2 – 3). “the virtual environment data can be fed into the real environment sensors of the vehicle, which is driving on a test track”, “The reactions of the real vehicle to the virtual environment data (e.g. virtual obstacles) can be passed on to the user via the driving simulator, so that the user's virtual experience matches reality” (translation page 6 – 7). Thus, Stefan teaches having/initiate/generate virtual vehicles in the system that link to physical vehicles based on state information of physical vehicle. Even though Stefan does not explicitly teach “plurality of virtual vehicles” and “plurality of physical vehicles”, it is common experience that showrooms offer multiple vehicle models and multiple trims/colors of each model for selection by test drivers. Bilonenko teaches “a remote driving system” that “include a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of teleoperators” (0013), and methods to “select a teleoperator and a vehicle for performance of a desired task” (0015). “The plurality of teleoperators may be positioned at respective teleoperator stations, which may be remote from the vehicle locations of the plurality of vehicles” (0013) and “the teleoperator may view the live video stream and remotely drive the vehicle” (0011). Thus, the combination of Bilonenko and Stefan renders obviousness of the cited limitation.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. For further detail, refer to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan, DE102022128018 in view of Bilonenko et al., (hereinafter Bilonenko), US20240111284.
Regarding Claim 1, Stefan discloses: A system comprising: a controller (Stefan, translation, page 3, & fig. 2B, “vehicle simulator 200 may include controls 210 that correspond to controls of the vehicle 10, such as a steering wheel, pedals, a selector switch, etc. In some embodiments, the vehicle simulator 200 may emulate a cockpit of the vehicle 10.”) programmed to:
obtain state information about a … physical vehicle (translation page 2, “the virtual environment data (state information) is based on real environment data (of the physical vehicle). For example, the virtual environment data can be collected during real driving of a vehicle and then subsequently provided as the virtual environment data. This ensures that the virtual environment data used both for the simulation and for controlling the real vehicle correspond to reality.”);
generate … virtual vehicle linked to the … physical vehicle based on the state information about the … physical vehicle (refer to the mapping above & translation page 2, the “sensor data (state information) that is important for a vehicle function to be tested can be generated virtually and fed into a virtual vehicle function”; translation page 9, “The vehicle simulator 200 (where the virtual vehicle is in) and the vehicle 10 (physical vehicle) can be connected to one another via a communication connection 1”);
determine driving values for the … virtual vehicles based on the state information (refer to the mapping above & translation page 6, “The reactions of the real vehicle to the virtual environment data (e.g. virtual obstacles) can be passed on to the user via the driving simulator, so that the user's virtual experience matches reality”; i.e., the state/status such as engine on/off, speed, etc. are the state information of the vehicle and are simulated on the virtual vehicle as the driving value of the virtual vehicle);
initiate teleoperations on the one or more virtual vehicles, wherein the teleoperations comprise inputs to the one or more virtual vehicles, (refer to the mapping above & translation page 2, “For the purpose of virtual testing, e.g. by a potential customer”; i.e., when customer request for test drive, the manage may initiates/turn on the teleoperation of the vehicle)
control a movement of the one or more virtual vehicles in response to the inputs (refer to the mapping above, user moves the steering wheel, pedal and selector of the virtual vehicle which also cause the virtual vehicle to drive in the metaverse); and
control the one or more physical vehicles based on the movement of the one or more virtual vehicles (refer to the mapping above & translation page 3, “inputs in the vehicle simulator (of virtual vehicle) may be transmitted to the real vehicle … in particular steering, braking and accelerating”; i.e., the movement of the steering wheel, braking and accelerating pedal in the physical vehicle is controlled based on the movement of the steering wheel and pedals of the virtual vehicle).
Stefan does not explicitly teach:
a plurality of virtual vehicles linked to a plurality of physical vehicles
select one or more virtual vehicles of the plurality of virtual vehicles based on at least one property of the state information;
teleoperations comprising inputs to the one or more virtual vehicles based on at least one value of the driving values
Bilonenko, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a plurality of virtual vehicles linked to a plurality of physical vehicles; select one or more virtual vehicles of the plurality of virtual vehicles based on at least one property of the state information (Bilonenko, at least Fig. 1 & 0013, “a remote driving system” that “include a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of teleoperators”; 0015, “select a teleoperator and a vehicle for performance of a desired task”; 0013, “The plurality of teleoperators may be positioned at respective teleoperator stations, which may be remote from the vehicle locations of the plurality of vehicles”; 0011, “the teleoperator may view the live video stream and remotely drive the vehicle”; i.e., the system of Bilonenko links multiple vehicles on multiple teleoperator station for multiple drivers to operate on multiple virtual vehicles)
teleoperations comprising inputs to the one or more virtual vehicles based on at least one value of the driving values (refer to the mapping above & 0045, “the fleet management system 220 may … modify the assignment or allocation of tasks 225 based on … available vehicle, unavailable vehicle”; in this case, the availability of vehicles are one of the values of the driving values. Based on the availability, the teleoperation of the system initiate/start the teleoperation session, thus, the input is based on a value of the driving values of the vehicle)
Stefan and Bilonenko both teach teleoperation of physical vehicles in the virtual environment and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further apply the fleet management architecture of Bilonenko’ s teaching using the system of Stefan to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to “correctly depict real vehicle behavior in a virtual environment” (Stefan, translation page 2) .
Regarding Claim 2, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: the one or more virtual vehicles is controlled in a metaverse environment (Stefan, translation page 5, “generating a simulation in a metaverse”).
Regarding Claim 3, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: the teleoperations are initiated on two or more virtual vehicles (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Bilonenko 0014, “the one or more fleet management or control systems may control, coordinate, and/or instruct performance of a plurality of tasks by the plurality of teleoperators with respect to the plurality of vehicles.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Bilonenko further teach: compare each of the driving values for the plurality of virtual vehicles to a threshold value; and initiate teleoperations on the one or more virtual vehicles in response to the driving values for the one or more virtual vehicles being greater than the threshold value (Bilonenko, 0067, “a control system may initiate connection between a teleoperator and a vehicle with teleoperator confirmation, and/or a control system may substantially automatically initiate connection between a teleoperator and a vehicle”; 0092 – 0093, “The fleet management tasks may include various type of remote driving operations, such as … driving to a repair or maintenance location”; when the vehicle millage or time since last service greater than the recommended value, the system initiate the connection of an teleoperator to control the vehicle to the maintenance facility).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further apply the systematic scheduling of teleoperation as taught by Bilonenko in the system as described in Claim 1 to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to “coordinate, organize, and/or optimize the performance of a plurality of tasks” (Bilonenko, 0016).
Regarding Claim 6, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Bilonenko further teach: rank the plurality of virtual vehicles based on a rank queue system; initiate teleoperations on the virtual vehicle having a first rank first and then initiate teleoperations on the virtual vehicle having a second rank, wherein the first rank is higher than the second rank (Bilonenko, 0046, “the fleet management system 220 may also process the received data to determine or generate a schedule or order in which the various tasks are to be instructed and performed by the various combinations of teleoperators and vehicles. Thus, the fleet management system 220 may assign, allocate, or instruct performance of tasks by various combinations of teleoperators and vehicles at designated times and/or in determined orders or sequences.” Vehicles are queued in sequence/order based on their tasks).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Bilonenko further teach: the driving value for each of the plurality of virtual vehicles comprises an emergent need, an urgent need, or both, of the teleoperations (refer to the mapping in Claim 6 & Bilonenko, 0091, “the fleet management tasks may have lower priority and/or may be performed after more urgent or higher priority tasks have been assigned, instructed, or completed.”; the system use priority/urgency to determine which task to perform).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: the state information comprises properties that correspond to one or more of colors of the plurality of physical vehicles, fuel gauges of the plurality of physical vehicles, models of the plurality of physical vehicles, types of the plurality of physical vehicles, movements of the plurality of physical vehicles, drivers of the plurality of physical vehicles, locations of the plurality of physical vehicles, status of drivers of the plurality of physical vehicles, status of passengers of the plurality of physical vehicles, contexts of driving situation of the plurality of physical vehicles, or combinations thereof (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Stefan, translation page 3, “the vehicle simulator may emulate a cockpit of the vehicle”; Bilonenko, 0025, “state information may comprise data or information related to speed, acceleration, steering angle, yaw rate, steering torque, and/or other operational data or characteristics associated with the vehicle 102”; 0044, “fleet management system 220 may receive various data from the vehicles 102 … types, availability, capabilities, or other data,”; 0068, “teleoperator station may be configured to receive … drive state information, and/or other data”; Stefan teaches the emulation of the cockpit of the physical vehicle in the virtual environment, Bilonenko teaches that the state information includes not only the current states of a physical vehicle but also the states that can identify and distinguish each of the different vehicle. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitations).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Bilonenko further teach: the state information is gathered by one or more sensors of each of the plurality of physical vehicles (Bilonenko, 0020 – 0022, “The sensors to detect or measure drive state information of the vehicle 102 may comprise various types of sensors configured to detect speed, acceleration, steering angle, yaw rate, steering torque, and/or other operational characteristics of the vehicle 102.”).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: a screen, wherein the controller is further programmed to: obtain views of the plurality of physical vehicles captured by cameras of the plurality of physical vehicles; and display, on the screen, virtual views linked to the views of one or more physical vehicles upon initiation of the teleoperations on the one or more virtual vehicles (refer to the mapping of Claim 1 & Stefan, translation page 4, “The at least one environmental sensor 12 can comprise, for example … one or more cameras”; Stefan, fig. 2B illustrates the virtual views of the teleoperator on a screen that is linked to the view of the physical vehicle).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: a screen (Stephan, fig. 2, a screen), wherein the controller is further programmed to: obtain views of the plurality of physical vehicles captured by cameras of the plurality of physical vehicles; display, on the screen, virtual views linked to the views of the plurality of physical vehicles (Bilonenko, 0029, “The presentation device 116 may comprise one or more monitors, screens, projectors, display devices, head mounted displays, augmented reality displays, other types of presentation devices”); and emphasize, on the screen, one or more virtual views upon initiation of the teleoperations on the one or more virtual vehicles (Bilonenko , 0029, “the presentation device 116 may present, emit, or provide the various imaging data, visual indicators, audio feedback, haptic feedback, or other indicators, such that a teleoperator at the teleoperator station 110 may have an awareness of an environment around the vehicle 102 and maintain safe and reliable remote driving operations”; i.e., emphasizing the road situations while the teleoperator is controlling the vehicle).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: the driving value for each of the plurality of virtual vehicles comprises a speed, an acceleration, an orientation, or a yaw rate of corresponding physical vehicle (refer to the mapping in Claim 1, & translation page 3, the driving value include the turning value of the steering wheel thus, incudes the yaw/turning rate of the steering wheel of the physical vehicle).
Regarding Claim 14 – 16 and 18 – 20, these are the corresponding method claim of Claim 1 – 3, 5 – 7 and thus rejected with the same reason.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan, DE102022128018 in view of Bilonenko et al., (hereinafter Bilonenko), US20240111284 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kutkut US20180300968.
Regarding Claim 4, Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: link the plurality of virtual vehicles to the plurality of physical vehicles based on the state information of the plurality of physical vehicles through a cloud server.
Kutkut, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
link the plurality of virtual vehicles to the plurality of physical vehicles based on the state information of the plurality of physical vehicles through a cloud server (0029, “a fleet management cloud application 63 (cloud application) based upon a cloud computing platform”).
Stefan (in view of Bilonenko) and Kutkut both teach fleet management system and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further apply the cloud architecture of Kutkut’s teaching in Stefan (in view of Bilonenko)’s fleet management system to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification for the known benefit of cloud computing including scalability, performance, data loss prevention etc.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is the corresponding method claim of Claim 4 and thus rejected with the same reason.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan, DE102022128018 in view of Bilonenko et al., (hereinafter Bilonenko), US20240111284 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graf et al., (hereinafter Graf), US20240103548.
Regarding Claim 10 Stefan and Bilonenko combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: the driving value for each of the plurality of virtual vehicles comprises an amount of a deviation of corresponding vehicle from a center of a road, and the controller is further programmed to:
determine whether the amount of the deviation of corresponding vehicle is greater than a threshold; and
control one or more physical vehicles linked to the one or more virtual vehicles in response to receiving inputs on the one or more virtual vehicles.
Graf, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the driving value for each of the plurality of virtual vehicles comprises an amount of a deviation of corresponding vehicle from a center of a road, and the controller is further programmed to: determine whether the amount of the deviation of corresponding vehicle is greater than a threshold; and control one or more physical vehicles linked to the one or more virtual vehicles in response to receiving inputs on the one or more virtual vehicles (Graf, 0028, “it is determined which functionality or functionalities, thus which high-level task, is affected by the predicted or detected errors. This, thus a corresponding specification, is then sent with the request to the vehicle-external operator … Examples of such high-level tasks or functionalities can be or comprise, for example, the lateral guidance of the motor vehicle, a recognition of the course of a roadway or lane”; i.e., the error is relating to the lateral displacement along the road/lane ; 0041, “if the detected anomalies (amount of deviation) are sufficiently large, thus meet a predetermined threshold value criterion, for example, a request for a takeover of control by an operator can be generated by the assistance unit 42”; Bilonenko teaches that “the one or more tasks 225 may also comprise partially or fully autonomous operations to be instructed, initiated, or performed by the vehicle, with or without teleoperator input or confirmation (0038)”; Graf teaches that when the autonomous vehicle deviate from the center of the lane, the system request for teleoperator’s control. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitations).
Stefan (in view of Bilonenko) and Graf both teach vehicle teleoperation system and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further apply the anomaly monitoring and control takeover of Graf’s teaching to Bilonenko (in view of Bilonenko)’s fleet management system to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to “improve the safety or reduce effects of critical situations” (Graf, 0021).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Florian et al., DE1022125542, which teaches a virtual vehicle environment in metaverse that are implemented with .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached on (571)270-5227. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645