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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 10/23/2025, Applicant on 01/21/2026, amended Claims 1,6, 11. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(a). The rejections have been outlined below.
Applicants’ amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been withdrawn accordingly.
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and found to be persuasive.
The newly added limitations, “and causing the vehicle to travel according to the remote operation by actuating a steering wheel or pedal of the vehicle” serve to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Improvements to Other Technology, as the abstract ideas are not the heart of the claim but rather a means of effectuating a specific improvement to the operation of robotic vehicles.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lawler combined with Gombolay fails to teach the newly amended limitation of setting an upper limit determined on a proficiency level or operation available points. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In [0046] of Applicant’s specification it is outlined that points are a means of governing task demands with worker capacity, “Further, a method may be considered in which the upper limit number is regarded as operation available points, and a plurality of operations can be performed at a time up to the operation available points. For example, when the operation point of the remote monitoring is one, a remote operator having operation available points of five can engage in five operations of remote monitoring at a time. However, when the operation points of remote calling are three and the current operation points of a remote operator with operation available points of five are two, the remote operator cannot be assigned a remote calling”. In [0061] of Gombolay, "Labor nurses are modeled as agents with a finite capacity to process tasks in parallel, where each subtask requires a variable amount of this capacity. For example, a labor nurse may generally care for a maximum of two patients simultaneously. Mathematically, this is modeled in equation 11, looking at [0064], "Equation 11 ensures that agent a is not oversubscribed"; i.e. the summation of indicator variables regarding assignment of a given agent at one time does not exceed the capacity of a given agent at one time. Refer to [0063] and [0069] for the clarification of the meanings of variables. We understand the indicator variables governing agent capacity to correspond to Applicant’s claimed points.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added limitation pertaining to “causing the vehicle to travel”, as effectuated “by a computer” in Claims 1 and 11 or “at least one processor” in Claim 6, does not have support in Applicant’s specification and thereby constitutes new matter. While there is support for the idea of the vehicle “travelling”, according to remote instruction issued by a remote operator in [0032], it is implicit from the preamble language of Claims 1, 6 and 11 that it is the computer or processor that induces movement in the vehicle.
In Claim 1, “A method … by a computer, comprising: … causing the vehicle to travel…”.
In Claim 6, “An apparatus … configured to cause the at least one processor to: … cause the vehicle to travel”.
In Claim 11, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for assigning a remote operation…the program being configured to cause a computer to…cause the vehicle to travel”.
While Applicant’s specification does support facilitating remote operator control of a vehicle, this is distinct from the assignment system effectuating such control directly. Applicant is advised to amend the language of the claims to align with the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler(US 20180039265 A1) in view of Gombolay(US 20170293844 A1).
Claims 1, 6, 11
As to Claim 1, Lawler teaches:
A method for assigning a remote operation on a vehicle to a remote operator by a computer, comprising:
In [0021], "FIG. 1 is a detailed overview of the entire process architecture. Items labeled 101 are the remote vehicle operators. Items labeled 102 are the remote control and telemetry terminal systems used to inform the remote vehicle operators of vehicle conditions. Item 103 is the gateway to the processing algorithm which distributes vehicle service requests to the remote control and telemetry systems of the remote vehicle operators. Item 104 represents the matching engine between vehicles requiring service and remote vehicle operator terminals (102)".
Lawler does not teach:
classifying a requested remote operation into a first type of operation in which only one operation can be assigned to one remote operator at a time and a second type of operation in which a plurality of operations can be assigned to one operator at a time
However, Gombolay teaches:
classifying a requested remote operation into a first type of operation in which only one operation can be assigned to one remote operator at a time and a second type of operation in which a plurality of operations can be assigned to one operator at a time
In [0061], "Labor nurses are modeled as agents with a finite capacity to process tasks in parallel, where each subtask requires a variable amount of this capacity. For example, a labor nurse may generally care for a maximum of two patients simultaneously. If the nurse is caring for a patient who is “full and pushing” (i.e., the cervix is fully dilated and the patient is actively trying to push out the baby) or in the operating room, he or she may only care for that patient". Looking for a mathematical formalization of these constraints, at [00006], "U.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j; specifies the effort required from any agent to work on τ.sub.i.sup.j", and we have that "Equation 10 ensures that each subtask τ.sub.i.sup.j receives a sufficient portion of the effort of its assigned agent a during epoch [t, t+1)". Note that the particular context of nurses is irrelevant; it is merely exemplary of a CD [MT-MA-TA] class problem, wherein in [0032], “The Korsah et al. taxonomy also delineates between tasks requiring one agent (“single-agent tasks” (SA)); and tasks requiring multiple agents (“multi-agent tasks” (MA)). Similarly, agents that perform one task at a time are “single-task agents” (ST), while agents capable of performing multiple tasks simultaneously are “multi-task agents” (MT). Lastly, the taxonomy distinguishes between “instantaneous assignment” (IA), in which all task and schedule commitments are made immediately, and “time-extended assignment” (TA), in which current and future commitments are planned”.
Lawler teaches:
when the requested remote operation is the first type of operation, assigning the requested remote operation to an idle remote operator, the assigned idle remote operator remotely operates the vehicle;
In [0024], " FIG. 4 items between 103 and 105 represents the flowchart of the algorithm which distributes vehicle intervention requests to human remote operators. 401 is an algorithm or hardware implementation of an algorithm which receives the service request from the vehicle gateway 105. Service requests are passed to 402, a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators. It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism which allocates vehicle requests to human operators. 403 represents a routing algorithm which will route the service request to the human operator/terminal which is most capable of handling the request". Effectively, we are combining the notion of availability in Lawler to have the nuance of available effort and capacity in Gombolay; if a task is to consume all of an agent’s availability, we seek to find one who is wholly available, and if not, we parallelize where we can. This clearer picture of availability from Gombolay is exactly one such scoring mechanism.
Lawler does not teach:
selecting an active remote operator already engaged in the second type of operation to assign the requested remote operation from among a plurality of active remote operators based on a content of the second type of operation each active remote operator is engaged in,
Gombolay does teach:
selecting an active remote operator already engaged in the second type of operation to assign the requested remote operation from among a plurality of active remote operators based on a content of the second type of operation each active remote operator is engaged in,
In accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, we understand the content of the operation to be both metadata, such as priority or other features of the operation, as well as the tasks in the operation. With respect to factoring in content of the second type of operation each active remote operator is engaged in, by understanding content to be demanded capacity in [0061], "Labor nurses are modeled as agents with a finite capacity to process tasks in parallel, where each subtask requires a variable amount of this capacity. For example, a labor nurse may generally care for a maximum of two patients simultaneously. If the nurse is caring for a patient who is “full and pushing” (i.e., the cervix is fully dilated and the patient is actively trying to push out the baby) or in the operating room, he or she may only care for that patient". Looking for a mathematical formalization of these constraints, at [00006], "U.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j; specifies the effort required from any agent to work on τ.sub.i.sup.j", and we have that "Equation 10 ensures that each subtask τ.sub.i.sup.j receives a sufficient portion of the effort of its assigned agent a during epoch [t, t+1)".
Gombolay does not teach:
and a content of the requested remote operation; and assigning the requested remote operation to the selected active remote operator
However, Lawler teaches:
and a content of the requested remote operation; and assigning the requested remote operation to the selected active remote operator
In [0024], " FIG. 4 items between 103 and 105 represents the flowchart of the algorithm which distributes vehicle intervention requests to human remote operators. 401 is an algorithm or hardware implementation of an algorithm which receives the service request from the vehicle gateway 105. Service requests are passed to 402, a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators. It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism which allocates vehicle requests to human operators. 403 represents a routing algorithm which will route the service request to the human operator/terminal which is most capable of handling the request". Additionally routing on the basis of skills, or another aspect of the content of the operation is specifically provided for in [0011], "We extend this basic concept to the routing of service requests from semi-autonomous vehicles to a centralized group of human operators based on their specific skills and aptitudes for servicing semi-autonomous vehicle intervention requests".
Lawler teaches:
and causing the vehicle to travel according to the remote operation by actuating a steering wheel or pedal of the vehicle,
Remote operators control vehicles according to the systems disclosed in [0023], “FIG. 3 is a detailed view of the human operator side of operations….In some modes of operation it may give the operator discretion over tasks. It may be integrated with vehicle remote controls, such as a steering wheel, but this need not be the case. Item 304 is the various input-output devices, not necessarily part of the invention, which nevertheless allow a human operator to remotely control a vehicle and/or various I/O devices present with the vehicle, including local speakers, local microphones, local video capture devices, local video presentation screens, local steering systems, local accelerators, local braking systems, local signature/signing devices, etc., which correspond to systems on the vehicle”.
Lawler does not teach:
wherein the second type of operation has an upper limit set for each remote operator, the upper limit being determined based on a proficiency level of each remote operator or operation available points of each remote worker
However, Gombolay teaches:
wherein the second type of operation has an upper limit set for each remote operator, the upper limit being determined based on a proficiency level of each remote operator or operation available points of each remote worker
In [0061], "Labor nurses are modeled as agents with a finite capacity to process tasks in parallel, where each subtask requires a variable amount of this capacity. For example, a labor nurse may generally care for a maximum of two patients simultaneously. Mathematically, this is modeled in equation 11, looking at [0064], "Equation 11 ensures that agent a is not oversubscribed"; i.e. the summation of indicator variables regarding assignment of a given agent at one time does not exceed the capacity of a given agent at one time. Refer to [0063] and [0069] for the clarification of the meanings of variables. In [0046] of Applicant’s specification it is outlined that points are a means of governing task demands with worker capacity, “Further, a method may be considered in which the upper limit number is regarded as operation available points, and a plurality of operations can be performed at a time up to the operation available points. For example, when the operation point of the remote monitoring is one, a remote operator having operation available points of five can engage in five operations of remote monitoring at a time. However, when the operation points of remote calling are three and the current operation points of a remote operator with operation available points of five are two, the remote operator cannot be assigned a remote calling”. We understand the indicator variables governing agent capacity to correspond to Applicant’s claimed points.
Lawler discloses a system for managing requests for assistance from fleets of autonomous vehicles to human remote operators. Gombolay discloses a system meant to facilitate the scheduling of agents to perform tasks. Each reference pertains to the problem of managing and organizing human agents for operational support. Extending the system as recorded in Lawler to include the task parallelization of Gombolay is applicable to Lawler as we already have means of maintaining records on agent availability in Lawler, we are merely taking a more nuanced view on “availability” by adapting the possibility for agents to work on tasks in parallel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the method of Gombolay and apply that to the system of Lawler. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting task parallelization would enable operators to increase efficiency and overall improve system throughput. Currently, Lawler only discloses a “re-insurer” mechanism to accommodate increased operator demand, in [0017], “The system may even increase the number of potential operators by calling out to another bank or banks of operators, in the manner that re-insurers insure insurers”. Since tasks might be able to done in parallel, it’s clear that there is need for means to facilitate high operator demand.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 3, 8, 13
As to Claim 3, Lawler combined with Gombolay teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Gombolay teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the assigning the requested remote operation to the active remote operator comprises assigning the requested remote operation to an active remote operator engaged in less than an upper limit number of operations belonging to the second type of operation.
In [0061], "Labor nurses are modeled as agents with a finite capacity to process tasks in parallel, where each subtask requires a variable amount of this capacity. For example, a labor nurse may generally care for a maximum of two patients simultaneously. Mathematically, this is modeled in equation 11, looking at [0064], "Equation 11 ensures that agent a is not oversubscribed"; i.e. the summation of indicator variables regarding assignment of a given agent at one time does not exceed the capacity of a given agent at one time. Refer to [0063] and [0069] for the clarification of the meanings of variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for facilitating task parallelization of Gombolay and apply that to the system for facilitating remote operator management of fleets of autonomous vehicles of Lawler. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit as outlined above in Claim 1.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 3.
Claims 4, 9, 14
As to Claim 4, Lawler combined with Gombolay teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Lawler teaches:
The method according to claim 3, further comprising assigning the requested remote operation to an idle remote operator when the requested remote operation is the second type of operation and no active remote operator is engaged in less than the upper limit number of operations belonging to the second type of operation.
In [0017], "The system may even increase the number of potential operators by calling out to another bank or banks of operators, in the manner that re-insurers insure insurers". As claimed in Claim 13, "The system in claim 1, further comprising a “re-insurer” mechanism by which a second remote bank of human operators is available to handle an excess of demand by vehicles on the first bank".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for facilitating task parallelization of Gombolay and apply that to the system for facilitating remote operator management of fleets of autonomous vehicles of Lawler. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit as outlined above in Claim 1.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claims 5, 10, 15
As to Claim 5, Lawler combined with Gombolay teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Gombolay teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: when the requested remote operation is the first type of operation and there is no idle remote operator, reassigning the second type of operation in which some of a plurality of active remote operators are engaged to remaining active remote operators; and assigning the requested remote operation to a remote operator that becomes idle due to the reassigning of the second type of operation.
In [0067], "The resource nurse may also reassign roles among nurses: For example, a resource nurse may pull a nurse from triage, or even care for patients herself if the floor is too busy. Or, if a patient's condition is particularly acute (e.g., the patient has severe preeclampsia), the resource nurse may assign one-to-one nursing. The level of attentional resources a patient requires and the level a nurse has available correspond to variables U.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j and .sup.tG.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j.sup.a, respectively. The resource nurse makes his or her decisions while considering current patient status Λ.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j, which can be manually transcribed on, e.g., a whiteboard". As a specific example of dynamic reallocation based on need, in [0066], "The resource nurse may accelerate, delay or cancel scheduled inductions or cesarean sections in the event that the floor is too busy. Resource nurses may also request expedited active management of a patient in labor. The decision variables for the timing of transitions between the various steps in the care process are described by s.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j and f.sub.τ.sub.i.sub.j. The commitments to a patient (or that patient's procedures) are represented by H.sub.τ.sub.i". In [0062], "Rooms on the labor floor (e.g., a labor room, an operating room, etc.) are modeled as resources, which process subtasks in series. Agent and resource assignments to subtasks are pre-emptable, meaning that the agent and resource assigned to care for any patient during any step in the care process may be changed over the course of executing that subtask". We then construe this limitation to be anticipated by the ability for a nurse that is currently processing a patient to have that patient be reassigned to another nurse, and to have the newly freed nurse be scheduled to administer one-to-one nursing. The flexibility to alter assigned agents dependent on patient needs is within the bounds of the dynamic adjustments permitted by the model of Gombolay.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for facilitating task parallelization of Gombolay and apply that to the system for facilitating remote operator management of fleets of autonomous vehicles of Lawler. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit as outlined above in Claim 1.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623