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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US-9432929-B1), herein after will be referred to as Ross, in view of Pedersen et al. (EP-3552358-B1), herein after will be referred to as Pedersen, and in view of Stenneth et al. (EP-2911410-A2), herein after will be referred to as Stenneth.
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
A management system of an autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: "A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region based on..." (Col. 1, ll. 66-67)
Rationale: Ross discloses a backend management system (backend system) for a fleet of autonomously movable work machines (AVs).
the management system comprising processing circuitry,
See at least: "In one implementation, the computer system 1200 includes processing resources 1210... The computer system 1200 includes at least one processor 1210 for processing information stored in the main memory 1220..." (Col. 32, ll. 4-9)
Rationale: The backend system (management system) of Ross includes processors (processing circuitry) for executing management tasks.
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
See at least: "The processor 1210 is configured with software and/or other logic to perform one or more processes, steps and other functions described with implementations..." (Col. 2, ll. 1-2)
Rationale: The processors in Ross are configured via software logic to execute the functions of the system.
receive a work request;
See at least: "The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices executing a designated application to facilitate transportation for requesting users." (Col. 2, ll. 1-4)
Rationale: The receipt of pick-up requests from users by the backend system discloses receiving a work request.
formulate an operation plan of the autonomously movable work machine based on the work request,
See at least: "For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel..." (Col. 2, ll. 7-10)
Rationale: Formulating an optimal route (operation plan) in response to a pick-up request (work request) discloses formulating an operation plan based on the work request.
the operation plan including a movement path of the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: "The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... determine an optimal route for an AV to travel... utilize map data 343 and the network resource map 332 to determine a number of possible routes 367" Col. 2, ll. 1-4; Col. 25, ll. 51-57)
Rationale: The optimization operation determines a route (movement path) which is included in the plan sent to the work machine.
in a working area of the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: “The backend system 195 can utilize the location data 162 to, for example, manage routing of a fleet of AVs within a given region (e.g., a transportation arrangement service utilizing hundreds to thousands of AVS and spanning a city or a certain population). ." (Col. 6, ll. 1-5)
Rationale: The region or city in which the fleet operates discloses a working area.
assign the work request to the work machine based on the operation plan;
See at least: "The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... automatically send out AVs on the optimal default routes for pick-up requests..." (Col. 2, ll. 58; Col. 3, ll. 15 – 18)
Rationale: Sending a machine to service a request along a determined route discloses assigning the work request to the machine based on the plan.
acquire wireless communication environment data on the movement path
See at least: "the AV tracking and updating system 500 can receive updated network data from the AVs 590 that indicate current network latency for any number of... network latency data 168 can be communicated from the AV 100 to the backend system 195..." (Col. 25, ll. 2-4…Col. 6, ll. 42-43)
Rationale: Ross discloses acquiring network latency and bandwidth data (wireless communication environment data) from the machines as they travel.
collected by the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: "AVs 590 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region can provide updates 568 to the network data 521, such as network latency updates 569 and cost updates 562. ... AV3 593 can provide the updated latency data..." (Col. 18, ll. 33-45)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the work machines (AVs) collect the network environment data and transmit it back to the system.
and create a wireless communication environment map of the working area
See at least: "The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types originating from base stations located throughout the given region." (Col. 14, ll. 28-31)
Rationale: The creation of spectrum heat maps (wireless communication environment map) discloses creating the claimed map.
using the acquired wireless communication environment data,
See at least: "The backend system 300 can update the spectrum heat map based on network updates 369 received from the AV 390 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region (610)." (Col. 20, ll. 43-47)
Rationale: Ross teaches using the data acquired from the machines to build/update the heat map.
and wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: "...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363 from the pick-up location 317 to the destination 319..." (Col. 15, ll. 2-5)
Rationale: The backend circuitry uses the data from the spectrum map to perform the formulation of the route.
based on a data acquisition state of each section in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: "The stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region." (Col. 14, ll. 32-35); "The route optimization engine 360 can perform the optimization operation... based on... connectivity and data transmission requirements along each of the route options..." (Col. 13, ll. 19-20…Col. 12, ll. 37-38); “Update Spectrum Heat Map Based on Received Data” (Fig. 6, 610)
Rationale: Ross teaches formulating the route based on the network quality/strength (data acquisition state) of road segments (sections) identified on the spectrum heat map.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine periodically transmits information to the processing circuitry,
See at least: "The AVs 390 can periodically transmit their AV locations 373 over the network(s) 375... communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include status updates 161 of the AV 100..." (Col. 12, ll. 3-4…Col. 5, ll. 47-49)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the machines periodically transmit status and location information to the backend circuitry.
the information including at least wireless communication environment data
See at least: "...communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include... network latency data 168... and video and audio data 167" (Col. 5, ll. 47-51)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the periodic information includes network latency data (wireless communication environment data).
and transmit a command input by a user to the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: "The backend system 250 can include a transport facilitation engine 255 that generates and transmits transport commands 170 and manages a fleet of AVs within a given region. For any given AV (e.g., AV 200) in the managed fleet, the transport commands can be received by the AV's communications array 245, which is operated by the AV's 200 communication system 235." (Col. 8, ll. 17-23)
Rationale: Ross discloses transmitting transport commands (commands based on user pick-up/destination requests) to the work machine.
to control the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: The communication system 235 can transmit the transport commands to an AV control system 220, which can operate the acceleration, steering, braking, lights, signals, and other operative systems 225 of the AV 200 in order to drive and maneuver the AV 200 through road traffic to destinations specified by the transport commands. ." (Col. 8, 23-29)
Rationale: The purpose of the transmitted commands is to operate the mechanical systems (control) of the machine.
based on the command.
See at least: specified by the transport commands." (Col. 8, ll. 28-29)
Rationale: The work machine drives to the specific destination as dictated by the received instruction (command).
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly disclose:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
from the second level to the first level
at the current position,
and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control a displaying of an image on a display
based on the image data,
Disclosure by Pedersen
Pedersen provides discloses:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: "The network bandwidth is often used to exchange signals that include data associated with... the state of the environment in which the autonomous vehicles operate (e.g., surrounding roads, city, traffic updates, etc.)" [0010]; the sensor data can be used to generate a representation of the physical environment in and around the vehicle; internal state data, including imagery…"[0073].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches the collection and transmission of environmental sensor data (image data) representing the area surrounding (around) the autonomous vehicle.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
See at least: "...the functions performed by the disclosed technology include prioritizing data from vehicles based on sensor location and received instructions... prioritizing transmittance of sensor data... provide more effective bandwidth constrained image processing..." ([0014]); “The prioritized sensor data message includes a request for prioritized sensor data from the sensors in the vehicle. The prioritized sensor data message can include any of: the data transfer rate, which can be used in determining a priority of the sensors (e.g., a data transfer rate that is insufficient to transmit high resolution video imagery could be used by the vehicle to assign a higher priority to transmitting still images or lower resolution video imagery); a preferred sensor type (e.g., when the environment is darker, including at night, an infrared sensor can be prioritized higher than an optical sensor that detects visible light); and a preferred state data type which can include a priority ranking of the types of state data, for example, external environment data associated with images of the external environment can be prioritized over vehicle exterior data associated with images of the vehicle’s exterior, which could in turn be prioritized over images including symbolic indicators of the temperature or humidity inside the vehicle” ([0079])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches a protocol that prioritizes (preferentially transmits) image data over other streams when communication is constrained.
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
See at least: "The disclosed technology provides a way to determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold...)" ([0014])
Rationale: Pedersen teachings use a data transfer rate falling below a threshold (decrease in communication speed) to trigger prioritization functions.
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
See at least: "determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold" ([0014])
Rationale: Rationale: The “predetermined … threshold” delineates a higher level (above-threshold) and a lower level (below-threshold).
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: "In response to determining that the data transfer rate satisfies a data transfer rate criterion... a location of a vehicle... can be determined...”([0024]);
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the rate monitoring and subsequent priority adjustments are linked to the specific location (current position) of the vehicle.
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
See at least: "...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases... retrieving the image data when the data transfer rate satisfies the data transfer rate criterion." ([0078])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that normal operations or data retrieval are triggered when the rate "increases," which constitutes a functional recovery of speed.
from the second level to the first level
See at least: "...wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases, and the image stream from the vehicle is of sufficient quality for the tele-operator to continue providing assistance..." ([0078])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches recovering from the constrained state (second level) to a state of sufficient quality/satisfying the criterion (first level).
at the current position,
See at least: "...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases..." ([0078])
Rationale: The recovery trigger is tied to the vehicle's location where the signal improvement occurs.
and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control a displaying of an image on a display
See at least: "The client computing device can then generate a representation of the bandwidth constrained image processing interface 3000 on a display device... which can then be displayed using the GUI for interaction by an operator." ([0059])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches management circuitry (controller/client device) that controls a display to present visual images to an operator.
based on the image data.
See at least: "...improving the way in which image data (used to produce visual images) is processed... the ability of vehicle operators and others who rely on visual images to provide assistance to vehicles is facilitated." ([0011])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the display is specifically generated based on the image data transmitted from the machine.
Motivation to Combine Ross and Pedersen
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross and Pedersen before them, to modify Ross’s backend management system that coordinates routes for a fleet of AVs using network resource/heat maps and AV-provided network condition data by incorporating Pedersen’s bandwidth-constrained image processing and data-prioritization techniques (including prioritizing transmission of image-related state data when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a criterion and controlling a display/GUI to present images based on received image data), because Ross already operates in the same technical context of network-limited communications with autonomous vehicles and relies on wireless-network metrics to support fleet operations, while Pedersen expressly addresses the known problem of maintaining usable operator-facing visual information and image-based assistance under constrained or changing network transfer rates. Implementing Pedersen’s priority policy and display-control interface within Ross’s backend/teleoperation communications framework would have been a straightforward substitution of known communication-management and UI techniques for predictable improvement—namely, enabling the backend/operator to continue receiving and displaying usable image data under degraded bandwidth conditions while preserving Ross’s existing route coordination and network-aware fleet management functions, without requiring changes to Ross’s fundamental backend architecture.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross, and Pedersen
Ross, and Pedersen do not explicitly disclose:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
See at least: "...determine whether to cause... (a) a transmission of sensor data... (b) a caching of the sensor data prior to a batch transmission of the sensor data to the at least one receiving entity, or (c) a combination thereof." (Abstract);... a sensor data relating to the trunk of the at least one vehicle is not critical and can be archived before it can be sent to the cloud." ([0023])
Rationale: Stenneth teaches prioritizing sensor data and holding (caching/archiving) non-critical information (other information) in memory when immediate transmission is not required.
and transmit the other information held in the memory
See at least: "the X sensor data may be removed from the cache and placed on the channel before the Y sensor data." ([0058])
Rationale: Stenneth teaches that data held in the cache (memory) is subsequently removed from the cache and transmitted (placed on the channel) to the receiving entity.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen , and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to further modify the combined Ross–Pedersen system by incorporating Stenneth’s explicit caching/archiving and batch-transmission control for lower-priority sensor data (including determining whether to transmit immediately versus cache prior to batch transmission, and later removing cached data and placing it on the channel), because Ross already depends on continuous vehicle-to-backend communications and Pedersen expressly prioritizes image-related data when bandwidth is constrained (i.e., when the data transfer rate falls below a criterion), which predictably creates a need to temporarily defer or buffer non-image (“other”) information during low-throughput conditions. Stenneth provides a directly compatible, well-known solution—caching non-critical data in memory and scheduling its later transmission—so that bandwidth is reserved for higher-priority image-related information during degradation, while the deferred data is reliably delivered once communications improve. This combination yields predictable results (improved bandwidth utilization, reduced packet loss/congestion, and improved continuity of image-based operator assistance) using established techniques in the same field of vehicle telemetry transmission management and does not require undue redesign beyond routine integration of cache-and-batch logic into the existing transmission control of the backend/vehicle communication pipeline.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth, establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan such that
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The cited “backend system” performing an “optimization operation to determine an optimal route” corresponds to processing circuitry formulating an operation plan (route/plan) such that downstream route/path selection behavior is produced.
among the sections in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: “In various examples, the stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
Rationale: “heat maps” referring to “road segments … throughout the given region” corresponds to sections in a working area represented on a wireless communication environment map.
are preferentially included in the movement path.
See at least:“The backend system can target these network-limited areas and route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas can continue to communicate …” (Col. 2, ll. 56-59)
Rationale: “target … areas” and “route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas” corresponds to preferential inclusion of identified sections/areas into a planned route/movement path.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly disclose:
a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing
and a section in which the wireless communication environment data is not updated
exceeding a predetermined time
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing
See at least: “may determine one or more sensor data for at least one cell of a map 206 … based, at least in part, on a determination that the at least one cell has inadequate sensor data.” ([0036])
Rationale: “at least one cell of a map” having “inadequate … data” corresponds to a section in which the relevant mapped data is missing (i.e., insufficient/absent for that section), consistent with the claim’s “section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing.”
and a section in which the wireless communication environment data is not updated
See at least: “there is a need to extrapolate sensor data for cells which have stale or limited sensor data from cells that have current and stable sensor data.” ([1101])Rationale: Cells having “stale … data” corresponds to a section where the mapped data is not updated (i.e., not current/fresh).
exceeding a predetermined time
See at least: “Any sensor data that exceeds the max cache duration is pruned from the cache …” ([1007])
Rationale: “exceeds the max cache duration” corresponds to data exceeding a predetermined time (a fixed, predefined duration threshold) used to determine that stored data has become stale.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the Claim-1 management system (already established by the combination) so that the route-formulation logic of Ross is further informed by the per-section/cell data-sufficiency and staleness teachings of Stenneth (including identifying cells with “inadequate” data, identifying “stale” data, and applying a “max cache duration” time threshold), in a bandwidth/communication-constrained autonomous-vehicle environment of the type addressed by the combined system (including the Claim-1 communication-management teachings supported by Pedersen), because these references are in compatible vehicle-telemetry / autonomous-operation contexts and predictably yield improved map completeness/freshness-driven planning by steering planned movement paths toward sections with missing or stale mapped information using known data-aging thresholds and map-cell sufficiency logic.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes a plurality of work machines,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A “fleet of AVs” corresponds to a plurality of work machines, and Ross’s backend system coordinates routes for that fleet, satisfying wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes a plurality of work machines,.
and wherein when the work request is assigned to one autonomously movable work machine among the plurality of autonomously movable work machines,
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 58–59)
Rationale: Instructing and sending out a specific AV “to service” a request corresponds to assigning that request to one autonomously movable work machine among the plurality of autonomously movable work machines. This supports the when-condition portion of the claim (i.e., the event of assignment).
the processing circuitry assumes that the wireless communication environment data on the movement path along which the autonomously movable work machine moves is acquired.
See at least: “AVs 590 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region can provide updates 568 to the network data 521, such as network latency updates 569 …” (Col. 18, ll. 33–36)
Rationale: Ross expressly teaches that dispatched AVs traveling along their routes “provide … network latency updates,” which are wireless communication environment data acquired along the traveled path. Further, because (i) the request is assigned by sending out a particular AV (mapped above), and (ii) sent-out AVs traveling provide network-latency updates, a PHOSITA would understand Ross’s backend/processing circuitry necessarily operates on the premise/expectation (i.e., “assumes”) that such wireless-environment updates on the movement path along which the autonomously movable work machine moves will be acquired as the AV travels, satisfying the required when-conditioned relationship (assignment → dispatch/travel → acquisition of network-latency data).
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to further configure the combined management system (already established for Claim 2) such that, when the work request is assigned to one autonomously movable work machine among the plurality of autonomously movable work machines, the processing circuitry assumes that the wireless communication environment data on the movement path along which the autonomously movable work machine moves is acquired, because Ross already assigns requests by selecting and sending out a particular vehicle from a fleet on a route, and Stenneth teaches monitoring/deriving wireless conditions via detected “wireless signals” and coordinating expectations/data-sufficiency relative to regions and the “current and future path” of vehicles, such that incorporating Stenneth’s path-associated data expectation into the request-assignment/routing context yields the predictable result that, upon assignment and routing, the system operates on the expectation/assumption that the relevant wireless-environment data along the vehicle’s movement path will be acquired as the vehicle traverses that path.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Ross , Pedersen , and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The cited “backend system” performing an “optimization operation to determine an optimal route” corresponds to processing circuitry formulating an operation plan (route/plan) such that downstream route/path selection behavior is produced.
based further on a wireless communication environment of each section in the working area.
See at least: “…the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363…” (Col. 15, ll. 2–5); “The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types… the stored resource or heat maps 332… may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 28–35); “The route optimization engine 360 can perform the optimization operation… (Col. 13, ll. 19–20); “… connectivity and data transmission requirements along each of the route options…” (Col. 12, ll. 37-38)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the route formulation is based on a “spectrum heat map” (which indicates “network coverage strength,” i.e., the wireless communication environment) of “road segments” (i.e., each section) throughout the “given region” (i.e., the working area). Because Ross explicitly lists “connectivity and data transmission requirements” as an additional factor evaluated alongside map and traffic data in the optimization engine, it teaches the formulation is based further on the wireless environment.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the combined management system (already established for Claim 1) such that the operation plan is formulated based further on a wireless communication environment of each section in the working area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Ross's "spectrum heat map" logic—which evaluates connectivity metrics for specific road segments—in conjunction with Stenneth's map-cell auditing, because modern autonomous fleet managers require high-fidelity awareness of the signal landscape to ensure reliable tele-operation and data offloading. Incorporating the environment of each mapped section into the path-selection algorithm yields the predictable result of an "information-aware" route that avoids network dead zones or high-latency segments, thereby ensuring that the safety-critical visual stream (as taught by Pedersen) remains uninterrupted during the work machine's traversal of the working area.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Ross , Pedersen , and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry further formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The cited “backend system” performing an “optimization operation to determine an optimal route” corresponds to processing circuitry formulating an operation plan (route/plan) such that downstream route/path selection behavior is produced.
based on a road surface condition of each section in the working area.
See at least: “the backend system 300 selects the AV based on a shortest ETA by accounting for road conditions...” (Col. 20, ll. 61-62); “The alerts 169 can include information ranging from emergency communications… road quality alerts, and the like.” (Col. 7, ll. 19–21); “The stored resource or heat maps 332… may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the route formulation is based on “road conditions” (i.e., road surface condition). Because Ross explicitly describes the collection of “road quality alerts” and includes “road conditions” as a variable in the route optimization engine for specific “road segments” (i.e., each section) within the given region (i.e., working area), the reference discloses the triggered relationship and the condition.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the combined management system (already established for Claim 1) such that the operation plan is based on a road surface condition of each section in the working area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate road quality data into Ross's optimization engine because the physical safety and operational efficiency of an autonomously movable work machine depend heavily on the traversability of the surface. Ross already anticipates using "road quality alerts" and "road conditions" to select which AV services a request; applying this same logic to the path-formulation stage (as taught by Ross's optimization engine) is a predictable improvement. This combination yields the predictable result of a management system that steers machines away from degraded or unsuitable road surfaces, thereby reducing mechanical wear and ensuring that high-priority image data (as taught by Pedersen) is not disrupted by vibration or loss of traction caused by poor surface conditions.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Ross , Pedersen , and Stenneth (Stenneth) establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes a plurality of autonomously movable work machines,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: Ross’s “fleet of AVs” corresponds to a plurality of autonomously movable work machines managed by the system.
and wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The backend system (comprising processing resources 1210) performing an optimization to determine an optimal route corresponds to the processing circuitry that formulates the operation plan.
based further on the movement path of the autonomously movable work machine that has not completed the work request assigned thereto.
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests, and that will be within a predetermined distance from the off-network AV … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs … identify intercept points along the respective routes where the proximate AVs can establish a mesh network …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51); “The routing of these AVs, which may also be routed to respective destinations, can be timed, routed, and rerouted in a manner such that the limited nature of network availability in these areas is sufficiently mitigated …” (Col. 2, ll. 61–65); “The backend system can determine the optimal route based on the results of the optimization operation, which can account for predicted communications requirements … mesh networking …” (Col. 2, ll. 22–26)
Rationale: Ross discloses identifying “candidate AVs” that have been “assigned to service pick-up requests” and are “traveling” along “current routes.” An AV assigned to service a request that is currently traveling is inherently an autonomously movable work machine that has not completed the work request assigned thereto. Ross teaches that the system “monitor[s]” these “current routes” (i.e., movement path) to “identify intercept points” and “manage routing” (i.e., formulates the operation plan) for the target vehicle. Because the system “account[s] for” these mesh networking opportunities (the paths of other machines on-mission) in the optimization engine alongside other factors, it teaches that the plan is based further on those paths.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure Ross’s fleet-management backend that assigns requests and generates/updates routes for a plurality of autonomous vehicles to additionally incorporate (i) Pedersen’s bandwidth-aware prioritization and operator-facing visual support under constrained links, and (ii) Stenneth’s coordination logic for leveraging other vehicles’ planned/active paths and data-sharing behaviors, so that operation-plan formulation for a selected work machine is further informed by the contemporaneous routes/paths of other work machines that are currently servicing assigned requests, because all three references address coordinating autonomous-vehicle operation over wireless networks with variable connectivity and limited throughput, and combining (a) Ross’s route optimization/dispatch, (b) Pedersen’s communications-aware transmission handling for continued oversight, and (c) Stenneth’s multi-vehicle coordination techniques would have predictably improved fleet-level efficiency and reliability by allowing the backend to select/adjust routes with awareness of in-progress vehicle paths and available cooperative connectivity/data-support opportunities, without requiring changes beyond routine integration of known routing, communications-management, and coordination techniques.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A system that “send[s] out and coordinate[s] routes for a fleet of AVs” necessarily includes autonomously movable work machines within the managed fleet.
a first autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A “fleet of AVs” necessarily includes at least a first AV (i.e., a first autonomously movable work machine) as one member of the fleet.
and a second autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A “fleet of AVs” further necessarily includes at least a second AV (i.e., a second autonomously movable work machine) as another member of the fleet.
wherein the processing circuitry assigns
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: “instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests” evidences assignment logic performed by the backend system’s processing circuitry, i.e., assigning work to particular AVs.
a plurality of work requests
“The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: “pick-up requests” (plural) evidences a plurality of work requests handled by the backend system.
to the first autonomously movable work machine
“The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: Because the backend “send[s] out AVs” to “service” requests, the backend assigns a given request to a selected AV; a selected AV from the fleet corresponds to the first autonomously movable work machine.
before the second autonomously movable work machine completes
“the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: An AV that “ha[s] been assigned to service pick-up requests” and for which the system “monitor[s] the current routes traveled” is necessarily in-progress (i.e., has not yet completed the assigned request), satisfying the temporal relationship “before … completes.”
the work request
“the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The “pick-up request” being serviced corresponds to the work request.
assigned to the second autonomously moveable work machine,
“the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The “candidate AVs” are AVs within the fleet (i.e., autonomously movable work machines) to which service requests are assigned; a candidate AV distinct from the first corresponds to the second autonomously movable work machine.
and wherein a length of the movement path
“monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs … identify intercept points along the respective routes …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: “routes traveled” / “respective routes” correspond to movement paths, each of which has a length as a basic property of a route/path.
for each of the plurality of work requests
“The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: The backend receives multiple (plural) pick-up requests, i.e., a plurality of work requests, each of which is handled by route/dispatch logic.
assigned to the first autonomously movable work machine
“The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: The backend assigns service of requests to selected AVs; those selected AVs correspond to the first autonomously movable work machine for the subset of requests routed to it.
is shorter than a length of the movement path
“within a predetermined distance from the off-network AV … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: “within a predetermined distance” is an express distance/length constraint applied to candidate vehicles relative to another vehicle/location; distance is a direct measure of path length and supports a comparative “shorter than” relationship as a constrained-selection criterion on routing/path planning.
for the work request
“candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The referenced “pick-up request” being serviced corresponds to the work request used for comparison.
assigned to the second autonomously movable work machine.
“candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The “candidate AVs” include a vehicle that is assigned a pick-up request and traveling its current route; a vehicle different from the first AV corresponds to the second autonomously movable work machine assigned the work request.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the multi-vehicle management system that dispatches and routes a fleet of autonomously movable work machines to incorporate (i) communications-quality-aware operational constraints and timing criteria used for vehicle data transfer management (Pedersen) and (ii) coordination logic that evaluates vehicle route/path states for managing fleet behavior over mapped regions (Stenneth), thereby enabling the processing circuitry to assign multiple work requests to one vehicle while another vehicle remains enroute on its assigned request, and to do so using comparative route/path distance constraints to preferentially select shorter movement paths for the assigned set, because these references are in the same field of fleet coordination under connectivity constraints and predictably improve dispatch efficiency and operational reliability by applying known route-state awareness and timing/communications criteria to multi-vehicle assignment and path-length-based selection.
Regarding Claim 8,
Disclosure by Ross
Ross teaches:
A management method for an autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: "method of managing transportation and network connection timing for a fleet of AVs throughout a given region" (Col. 1, ll. 39-41)
Rationale: Ross discloses a backend management system (backend system) for a fleet of autonomously movable work machines (AVs).
the management method being executed by processing circuitry,
See at least: "In one implementation, the computer system 1200 includes processing resources 1210... The computer system 1200 includes at least one processor 1210 for processing information stored in the main memory 1220..." (Col. 32, ll. 4-9)
Rationale: The backend system’s method (management system) of Ross includes processors (processing circuitry) for executing management tasks.
and comprising receiving a work request;
See at least: "The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices executing a designated application to facilitate transportation for requesting users." (Col. 2, ll. 1-4)
Rationale: The receipt of pick-up requests from users by the backend system discloses receiving a work request.
formulating an operation plan of the autonomously movable work machine based on the work request,
See at least: "For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel..." (Col. 2, ll. 7-10)
Rationale: Formulating an optimal route (operation plan) in response to a pick-up request (work request) discloses formulating an operation plan based on the work request.
the operation plan including a movement path of the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: "The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... determine an optimal route for an AV to travel... utilize map data 343 and the network resource map 332 to determine a number of possible routes 367" Col. 2, ll. 1-4; Col. 25, ll. 51-57)
Rationale: The optimization operation determines a route (movement path) which is included in the plan sent to the work machine.
in a working area of the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: “The backend system 195 can utilize the location data 162 to, for example, manage routing of a fleet of AVs within a given region (e.g., a transportation arrangement service utilizing hundreds to thousands of AVS and spanning a city or a certain population). ." (Col. 6, ll. 1-5)
Rationale: The region or city in which the fleet operates discloses a working area.
assigning the work request to the autonomously movable work machine based on the operation plan;
See at least: "The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... automatically send out AVs on the optimal default routes for pick-up requests..." (Col. 2, ll. 58; Col. 3, ll. 15 – 18)
Rationale: Sending a machine to service a request along a determined route discloses assigning the work request to the machine based on the plan.
acquiring wireless communication environment data on the movement path
See at least: "the AV tracking and updating system 500 can receive updated network data from the AVs 590 that indicate current network latency for any number of... network latency data 168 can be communicated from the AV 100 to the backend system 195..." (Col. 25, ll. 2-4…Col. 6, ll. 42-43)
Rationale: Ross discloses acquiring network latency and bandwidth data (wireless communication environment data) from the machines as they travel.
collected by the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: "AVs 590 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region can provide updates 568 to the network data 521, such as network latency updates 569 and cost updates 562. ... AV3 593 can provide the updated latency data..." (Col. 18, ll. 33-45)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the work machines (AVs) collect the network environment data and transmit it back to the system.
and create a wireless communication environment map of the working area
See at least: "The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types originating from base stations located throughout the given region." (Col. 14, ll. 28-31)
Rationale: The creation of spectrum heat maps (wireless communication environment map) discloses creating the claimed map.
using the acquired wireless communication environment data,
See at least: "The backend system 300 can update the spectrum heat map based on network updates 369 received from the AV 390 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region (610)." (Col. 20, ll. 43-47)
Rationale: Ross teaches using the data acquired from the machines to build/update the heat map.
and wherein the operation plan is formulated
See at least: "...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363 from the pick-up location 317 to the destination 319..." (Col. 15, ll. 2-5)
Rationale: The backend circuitry uses the data from the spectrum map to perform the formulation of the route.
based on a data acquisition state of each section in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: "The stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region." (Col. 14, ll. 32-35)
See also: "The route optimization engine 360 can perform the optimization operation... based on... connectivity and data transmission requirements along each of the route options..." (Col. 13, ll. 19-20…Col. 12, ll. 37-38)
See at least: “Update Spectrum Heat Map Based on Received Data” (Fig. 6, 610)
Rationale: Ross teaches formulating the route based on the network quality/strength (data acquisition state) of road segments (sections) identified on the spectrum heat map.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine periodically transmits information to the processing circuitry,
See at least: "The AVs 390 can periodically transmit their AV locations 373 over the network(s) 375... communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include status updates 161 of the AV 100..." (Col. 12, ll. 3-4…Col. 5, ll. 47-49)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the machines periodically transmit status and location information to the backend circuitry.
the information including at least wireless communication environment data
See at least: "...communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include... network latency data 168... and video and audio data 167" (Col. 5, ll. 47-51)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the periodic information includes network latency data (wireless communication environment data).
and transmitting a command input by a user to the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: "The backend system 250 can include a transport facilitation engine 255 that generates and transmits transport commands 170 and manages a fleet of AVs within a given region. For any given AV (e.g., AV 200) in the managed fleet, the transport commands can be received by the AV's communications array 245, which is operated by the AV's 200 communication system 235." (Col. 8, ll. 17-23)
Rationale: Ross discloses transmitting transport commands (commands based on user pick-up/destination requests) to the work machine.
to control the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: The communication system 235 can transmit the transport commands to an AV control system 220, which can operate the acceleration, steering, braking, lights, signals, and other operative systems 225 of the AV 200 in order to drive and maneuver the AV 200 through road traffic to destinations specified by the transport commands. ." (Col. 8, 23-29)
Rationale: The purpose of the transmitted commands is to operate the mechanical systems (control) of the machine.
based on the command.
See at least: specified by the transport commands." (Col. 8, ll. 28-29)
Rationale: The work machine drives to the specific destination as dictated by the received instruction (command).
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly teach:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
and wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
from the second level to the first level
at the current position;
and displaying of an image on a display
based on the image data,
Disclosure by Pedersen
Pedersen teaches:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: "The network bandwidth is often used to exchange signals that include data associated with... the state of the environment in which the autonomous vehicles operate (e.g., surrounding roads, city, traffic updates, etc.)" [0010]; the sensor data can be used to generate a representation of the physical environment in and around the vehicle; internal state data, including imagery…"[0073].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches the collection and transmission of environmental sensor data (image data) representing the area surrounding (around) the autonomous vehicle.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
See at least: "...the functions performed by the disclosed technology include prioritizing data from vehicles based on sensor location and received instructions... prioritizing transmittance of sensor data... provide more effective bandwidth constrained image processing..." ([0014]); “The prioritized sensor data message includes a request for prioritized sensor data from the sensors in the vehicle. The prioritized sensor data message can include any of: the data transfer rate, which can be used in determining a priority of the sensors (e.g., a data transfer rate that is insufficient to transmit high resolution video imagery could be used by the vehicle to assign a higher priority to transmitting still images or lower resolution video imagery); a preferred sensor type (e.g., when the environment is darker, including at night, an infrared sensor can be prioritized higher than an optical sensor that detects visible light); and a preferred state data type which can include a priority ranking of the types of state data, for example, external environment data associated with images of the external environment can be prioritized over vehicle exterior data associated with images of the vehicle’s exterior, which could in turn be prioritized over images including symbolic indicators of the temperature or humidity inside the vehicle” ([0079])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches a protocol that prioritizes (preferentially transmits) image data over other streams when communication is constrained.
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
See at least: "The disclosed technology provides a way to determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold...)" ([0014])
Rationale: Pedersen teachings use a data transfer rate falling below a threshold (decrease in communication speed) to trigger prioritization functions.
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
See at least: "determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold"
Rationale: Rationale: The “predetermined … threshold” delineates a higher level (above-threshold) and a lower level (below-threshold).
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: "In response to determining that the data transfer rate satisfies a data transfer rate criterion... a location of a vehicle... can be determined...”([0024]);
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the rate monitoring and subsequent priority adjustments are linked to the specific location (current position) of the vehicle.
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
See at least: "...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases... retrieving the image data when the data transfer rate satisfies the data transfer rate criterion." ([0078])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that normal operations or data retrieval are triggered when the rate "increases," which constitutes a functional recovery of speed.
from the second level to the first level
See at least: "...wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases, and the image stream from the vehicle is of sufficient quality for the tele-operator to continue providing assistance..." ([0078])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches recovering from the constrained state (second level) to a state of sufficient quality/satisfying the criterion (first level).
at the current position,
See at least: "...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases..." ([0078])
Rationale: The recovery trigger is tied to the vehicle's location where the signal improvement occurs.
and displaying of an image on a display
See at least: "The client computing device can then generate a representation of the bandwidth constrained image processing interface 3000 on a display device... which can then be displayed using the GUI for interaction by an operator." ([0059])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches management circuitry (controller/client device) that controls a display to present visual images to an operator.
based on the image data,
See at least: "...improving the way in which image data (used to produce visual images) is processed... the ability of vehicle operators and others who rely on visual images to provide assistance to vehicles is facilitated." ([0011])
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the display is specifically generated based on the image data transmitted from the machine.
Motivation to Combine Ross and Pedersen
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross and Pedersen before them, to modify Ross’s backend management system that coordinates routes for a fleet of AVs using network resource/heat maps and AV-provided network condition data by incorporating Pedersen’s bandwidth-constrained image processing and data-prioritization techniques (including prioritizing transmission of image-related state data when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a criterion and controlling a display/GUI to present images based on received image data), because Ross already operates in the same technical context of network-limited communications with autonomous vehicles and relies on wireless-network metrics to support fleet operations, while Pedersen expressly addresses the known problem of maintaining usable operator-facing visual information and image-based assistance under constrained or changing network transfer rates. Implementing Pedersen’s priority policy and display-control interface within Ross’s backend/teleoperation communications framework would have been a straightforward substitution of known communication-management and UI techniques for predictable improvement—namely, enabling the backend/operator to continue receiving and displaying usable image data under degraded bandwidth conditions while preserving Ross’s existing route coordination and network-aware fleet management functions, without requiring changes to Ross’s fundamental backend architecture.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross, and Pedersen
Ross, and Pedersen do not explicitly teach:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
See at least: "...determine whether to cause... (a) a transmission of sensor data... (b) a caching of the sensor data prior to a batch transmission of the sensor data to the at least one receiving entity, or (c) a combination thereof." (Abstract);... a sensor data relating to the trunk of the at least one vehicle is not critical and can be archived before it can be sent to the cloud." ([0023])
Rationale: Stenneth teaches prioritizing sensor data and holding (caching/archiving) non-critical information (other information) in memory when immediate transmission is not required.
and transmit the other information held in the memory
See at least: "the X sensor data may be removed from the cache and placed on the channel before the Y sensor data." ([0058])
Rationale: Stenneth teaches that data held in the cache (memory) is subsequently removed from the cache and transmitted (placed on the channel) to the receiving entity.
Motivation to Combine Ross , Pedersen , and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to further modify the combined Ross–Pedersen system by incorporating Stenneth’s explicit caching/archiving and batch-transmission control for lower-priority sensor data (including determining whether to transmit immediately versus cache prior to batch transmission, and later removing cached data and placing it on the channel), because Ross already depends on continuous vehicle-to-backend communications and Pedersen expressly prioritizes image-related data when bandwidth is constrained (i.e., when the data transfer rate falls below a criterion), which predictably creates a need to temporarily defer or buffer non-image (“other”) information during low-throughput conditions. Stenneth provides a directly compatible, well-known solution—caching non-critical data in memory and scheduling its later transmission—so that bandwidth is reserved for higher-priority image-related information during degradation, while the deferred data is reliably delivered once communications improve. This combination yields predictable results (improved bandwidth utilization, reduced packet loss/congestion, and improved continuity of image-based operator assistance) using established techniques in the same field of vehicle telemetry transmission management and does not require undue redesign beyond routine integration of cache-and-batch logic into the existing transmission control of the backend/vehicle communication pipeline.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the management method
See at least: “These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing examples disclosed herein can be carried and/or executed. ” (Col. 4, ll. 12-17)
Rationale: The “computer-readable medium” is described as a medium on which executable “instructions” are carried/stored, i.e., a storage medium rather than a transient signal. It further corresponds to storing a program because the “instructions” carried on the medium are program instructions. It also corresponds to for causing a computer to execute the management method because the same passage links the “instructions” on the medium to being “executed” by “processing resources,” meaning the program instructions, when executed by the computer’s processors, cause the computer to perform (execute) the disclosed management method.
Motivation to Combine Ross , Pedersen , and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to provide a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the management method established for Claim 8, because Ross already teaches implementing its backend/vehicle coordination functionality via executable “instructions” carried on a “computer-readable medium” and “executed” by “processing resources”, and Pedersen and Stenneth likewise operate in the same computer-implemented vehicle management/telemetry environment where the disclosed control and coordination functions are realized as software executed by computing systems, such that embodying the combined management method as program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium would have been a predictable and routine implementation choice for deploying the method on the involved computing platforms.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the autonomously moveable work machine is further configured to extend a transmission interval of the image data
based on the decrease in communication speed of the wireless communication environment from the first level to the second level.
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
wherein the autonomously moveable work machine is further configured to extend a transmission interval of the image data
See at least: "frequency for sensor data may be changed based on the contextual information, for example, a user driving at 10 miles per hour may not need to collect sensor data as compared to the user driving at 100 miles per hour." ([0023])
Rationale: This teaches that a vehicle system can change the frequency of sensor data collection/transmission ("frequency … may be changed"). A lower "frequency" necessarily corresponds to a longer time between successive transmissions, i.e., extend a transmission interval. In the combined Claim 1 system where the work machine transmits image data, a PHOSITA would treat image data as a type of sensor data and apply the same frequency/interval control to image-data transmission as a predictable implementation choice.
Disclosure by Pedersen
Pedersen discloses:
based on the decrease in communication speed of the wireless communication environment from the first level to the second level.
See at least: "The disclosed technology provides a way to determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold that results in the images based on image data being excessively degraded...)" ([0014])
Rationale: A "predetermined threshold" defines a first communication-speed level (above threshold) and a second communication-speed level (below threshold). Determining the rate is "below" the threshold corresponds to a decrease … from the first level to the second level, and the system’s responsive processing is performed based on that determination.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the autonomously movable work machine of the combined system (as established in Claim 1) such that it extends a transmission interval of the image data (Stenneth) in response to the detected decrease in communication speed of the wireless communication environment from the first level to the second level . A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the specific transmission-interval control taught by Stenneth (changing frequency of data transmission) with the precise bandwidth-degradation trigger taught by Pedersen (data transfer rate falling below a threshold) because both references address the common technical problem of managing data flow from vehicles under variable network conditions. Applying Stenneth's known technique of adjusting transmission timing in direct response to the bandwidth condition detected by Pedersen's method is a predictable design choice to conserve bandwidth and maintain link reliability during periods of poor connectivity, yielding the expected benefit of a more robust fleet management system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
New Matter
Applicant asserts that the amendments are supported by the originally-filed disclosure and that no new matter is introduced. Upon review of the amendment and the application as filed, no rejection for new matter is made.
35 U.S.C. § 101 WITHDRAWN
In the Final Office Action, Claims 1–9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the present RCE, independent Claims 1 and 8 have been amended to recite a specific, technical communication-control mechanism tied to measured changes in a wireless environment, including (i) preferential transmission of image data, (ii) holding other information in memory upon bandwidth degradation, and (iii) transmitting the held information upon recovery of the communication speed.
Accordingly, as amended, the pending claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a concrete network-based control technique that manages bandwidth-constrained remote operation/monitoring, rather than merely “collecting/analyzing/displaying” information in the abstract. For at least these reasons, the § 101 rejection of Claims 1–9 from the previous Final Office Action is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
A. Applicant’s arguments are moot as to the present rejection
Applicant’s 103 arguments are directed to the prior Final Office Action combination involving Lau/Wurman/Johansson/Parasuraman (and further references for dependent claims). In the RCE, the Office has applied new grounds of rejection relying on a different combination of prior art (e.g., Ross + Pedersen + Stenneth) as set forth in the current Office Action and accompanying mapping.
Because the applied references and corresponding factual findings have changed, Applicant’s arguments attacking the disclosures and rationale of the prior Lau/Johansson-based rejection do not traverse the current rejection and are therefore non-responsive to the present grounds.
B. In any event, the key distinctions argued by Applicant are directly addressed by the newly applied references
Even if Applicant’s prior distinctions are considered, the Office notes the newly applied references squarely address the precise technical points Applicant previously relied upon:
“Holding” data vs. merely “sharing bandwidth” (Johansson distinction)Applicant previously argued that Johansson’s weighted scheduling transmits lower-priority streams concurrently rather than “holding” them for later transmission. The current rejection does not rely on Johansson for this point. Instead, Pedersen expressly teaches a wait-and-retrieve protocol tied to data transfer rate recovery—i.e., the vehicle can “wait… until the data transfer rate increases” and then retrieve image data “when the data transfer rate satisfies” the criterion. This disclosure is materially different from concurrent weighted bandwidth sharing and corresponds to the claimed recovery-based transmission control.
“Holding other information in a memory” (specificity of held information)Applicant previously emphasized that the cited art did not “hold” other information in memory. Under the current rejection, Stenneth expressly teaches deciding between transmission vs. caching/archiving sensor data (including examples where certain data is “not critical and can be archived”), and further teaches subsequently removing cached data and placing it on the channel (i.e., transmitting it). This directly supports the claimed concept of holding non-image “other information” while higher-priority information is handled.
Claim 2 “data acquisition state” / map section awarenessTo the extent Applicant’s prior remarks did not address “informationally aware” routing, the current rejection relies on Stenneth for identifying map cells/sections with inadequate (missing) data, and uses data-staleness logic tied to a predefined storage duration (max cache duration) to prevent stale data. The current rejection further relies on Ross for preferentially routing/targeting specific areas/sections via backend route selection (i.e., targeting areas and routing selected vehicles through those areas). Thus, the “data acquisition state” limitation is addressed by the newly applied combination rather than the prior Lau/Johansson framework.
New Claim 10—extended transmission interval of image dataWith respect to Claim 10, Pedersen teaches that when the data transfer rate is insufficient for high-resolution video, the vehicle may assign higher priority to transmitting still images or lower resolution imagery. A PHOSITA would recognize that shifting from continuous high-rate video streaming to discrete still images necessarily increases the time between image transmissions (i.e., extends the transmission interval). Pedersen further discusses determining transmission delay based on a time interval between received signals.
Examiner Conclusion
For the reasons above:
The 101 rejection from the previous Final Office Action is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior Final Office Action are moot/non-responsive to the present RCE rejection because the Office has applied new prior art and a new evidentiary basis for the current 103 rejections.
Moreover, the newly applied Ross/Pedersen/Stenneth combination directly addresses the very issues Applicant previously raised regarding “hold vs. share,” recovery-based transmission, caching/archiving of other data, and map-section data sufficiency/staleness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662