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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant on Page 10 of Remarks states “Office Action at pp. 5-6. However, Ueda’s commands appear to simply involve “remote operation” (¶ 188), so the sensed data sent back to the remote device does not appear to include “at least one of a selected subset or a selected representation of sensor data” “designated by the remote communication.” Applicant has been unable to locate a corresponding disclosure elsewhere in the cited references”.
The examiner is unable to locate where the support is in the specification for amended claim 1. As rejected below, it is also unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating the remote communication is designating a subset of sensory data. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this as capturing an image from a remote location.
The Applicant also states “Claim 11 recites “issu[ing], to an ego-object in a physical environment, from a remote device in a remote location outside the physical environment, a remote communication defining a virtual camera” and “receiv[ing], from the ego-object, by the remote device, a stream of surround view visualizations rendered by the ego-object using the virtual camera defined by the remote communication.” The Office Action cites Ueda as establishing remote control of an autonomous vehicle that transmits a 3D modeling picture of its surroundings for visualization. Office Action at p. 9. However, the cited passages do not appear to contemplate “a remote communication defining a virtual camera” or “a stream of surround view visualizations rendered by the ego-object using the virtual camera defined by the remote communication.” Applicant has been unable to locate a corresponding disclosure elsewhere in the cited references”.
As explained more in detail below, it is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating a remote communication is defining a virtual camera. For examination purposes, similar to claim 1, the examiner will interpret this as capturing an image with a camera from a remote location. As cited previously in the Final Rejection, the surroundings of Ueda’s vehicle can be generated and displayed on Ueda’s remote device monitor.
The Applicant also states Claim 5 recites “wherein the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises directional audio steered by the ego-object toward a direction: i) associated with a salient event detected in the physical environment by the ego-object, or ii) designated by the remote communication.” The Office Action cites a YouTube video1 of a front collision sound warning, asserting that “the audio in the video . . . plays when the car is closing in on a nearby car.” Office Action at p. 13-14. The Office Action seems to consider a front collision sound warning “directional audio.” Even assuming arguendo that such a warning could be considered “directional audio,” simply playing back an audio warning does not suggest that the audio is “steered” “toward [the] direction” of the potential collision. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not conflate a simple audio warning with “directional audio,” let alone directional audio “steered by the ego-object toward a direction.” Applicant has been unable to locate a corresponding disclosure elsewhere in the cited references”.
A new reference has been introduced by the examiner, thus rendering the argument moot.
The Applicant also states “Claim 7 recites “wherein the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises a visualization of the environment rendered through a virtual camera oriented toward a salient event detected in the physical environment by the ego-object.” The Office Action cites Ueda to establish an autonomous vehicle transmitting sensor data during an emergency stop. Office Action at p. 7. There is no contemplation there of “a virtual camera” or “a virtual camera oriented toward a salient event detected in the physical environment by the ego-object.” Applicant has been unable to locate a corresponding disclosure elsewhere in the cited references”.
Ueda transmits sensed data to their remote device when an event requires an emergency stop and displays it on a monitor. Thus, the sensed data captured by a camera on the exterior of the vehicles (virtual camera) is pointed towards the emergency stop (salient event).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 2/24/2026, 3/26/2026, and 6/24/2026 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (and correspondingly claim 16) recites “issuing, to an ego-object in a physical environment from a remote device in a remote location outside the physical environment, a remote communication designating at least one of a selected subset or a selected representation of sensor data associated with one or more sensors of the ego-object”.
The Applicant stated that the support for the amended claim could be found in specification paragraph 252-257. However, after consulting the specification paragraphs, the examiner could not find support find support for the remote communication designating a part of a sensor data from the ego-object. If the Applicant believes the support is found elsewhere in the specification, they are respectfully requested to point it out.
Claims 2-10 and 17-20 are rejected for their dependencies on claims 1 and 16 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and correspondingly claim 16) recites “issuing, to an ego-object in a physical environment from a remote device in a remote location outside the physical environment, a remote communication designating at least one of a selected subset or a selected representation of sensor data associated with one or more sensors of the ego-object”. It is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating the remote communication is designating a part of a sensor data associated with one or more sensors in an ego-object. It is the examiner’s understanding that sensor data is automatically associated with sensors from the ego-object, thus making this limitation unclear as to what is actually occurring. The examiner recommends rewording this limitation to reflect the Applicant’s intention (if supported by the specification). For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this limitation as establishing a link between the remote device and the ego-object and capturing an image in the ego-object.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the remote communication from the remote device designates a virtual camera, and the at least one of the selected subset or the selected representation of the sensor data designated by the remote communication comprises, for at least one time slice of one or more time slices: a surround view visualization of the physical environment generated by the ego-object using the virtual camera designated by the remote communication”. It is unclear what the Applicant is stating when the remote communication designates a virtual camera. The BRI of a remote communication is simply a link that establishes a connection between the remote device and vehicle. Thus, it is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when saying a link designates a virtual camera. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this limitation as the ego-object containing a camera and capturing a surrounding view of the ego-object.
Claim 11 recites “issue, to an ego-object in a physical environment, from a remote device in a remote location outside the physical environment, a remote communication defining a virtual camera”. It is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating a remote communication is defining a virtual camera. Virtual camera are imaging devices, and thus it is unclear what the Applicant means when stating that a remote communication is defining such imaging devices as virtual cameras. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this limitation as establishing a link between the remote device and the ego-object and capturing an image in the ego-object.
Claims 2-10 and 17-20 are rejected for their dependencies on claims 1 and 16 respectively, and claims 12-15 are rejected for their dependencies on claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20190361436 A1) in view of Shin (US 20110115932 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda discloses a method comprising: issuing, to an ego-object in a physical environment from a remote device in a remote location outside the physical environment a remote communication (Ueda, paragraph [0066], “Autonomous vehicle control device 10 carries out interactive communication with remote control device 50 using a communication system using wireless LAN (Wireless Local Area Network) (hereinafter, referred to as a “first communication system”), and a communication system using a portable telephone network (cellular network) (hereinafter, referred to as a “second communication system”).”).
Ueda does not teach “a remote communication designating at least one of a selected subset or a selected representation of sensor data associated with one or more sensors of the ego-object”.
However, Shin teaches a remote communication designating at least one of a selected subset or a selected representation of sensor data associated with one or more sensors of the ego-object (Shin, paragraph [0037], "In step 230, when the camera receives the successive image capture start signal from the remote controller, the camera successively captures images at a predetermined interval").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to create a remote command to capture images from Ueda’s vehicle, as taught by Shin.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to capture images from afar manually.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Ueda in view of Shin discloses receiving, from the ego-object, using the remote device, a data stream representative of the physical environment (Ueda, paragraph [0097], "Remote control device 50 receives the sensed data (S20), generates a monitoring picture based on the sensed data, and displays the monitoring picture on display 54 (S21)."), the data stream comprising the at least one of the selected subset or the selected representation of the sensor data designated by the remote communication (Ueda, paragraph [0101], “Autonomous travel controller 111 specifies position information of an object around the vehicle based on the sensed data acquired from at least one of visible light camera 21, LIDAR 22, and millimeter wave radar 23.”),
and causing a display visible to a remote operator of the remote device to present a visualization of the data stream representative of the physical environment (Ueda, paragraph [0097], "Remote control device 50 receives the sensed data (S20), generates a monitoring picture based on the sensed data, and displays the monitoring picture on display 54 (S21).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueda in view of Shin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the selected subset or the selected representation of the sensor data designated by the remote communication and visualized on the display visible to the remote operator of the remote device comprises, for at least one time slice of one or more time slices: (i) a projection or a stitched image of the physical environment, (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model of the physical environment, or (iii) a surround view visualization generated using the 3D model (Ueda, paragraph [0071], "Furthermore, a three-dimensional modeling picture of the surrounding of the vehicle can be generated.").
Regarding claim 4, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the remote communication from the remote device designates a virtual camera, and the at least one of the selected subset or the selected representation of the sensor data designated by the remote communication comprises, for at least one time slice of one or more time slices: a surround view visualization of the physical environment generated by the ego-object using the virtual camera designated by the remote communication (Ueda, paragraph [0174], " In this case, a front picture, a rear picture, a left picture, and a right picture shot by visible light cameras 21 are combined, and thereby a bird's eye picture/omnidirectional picture can be generated.", the image is displayed on Ueda’s monitor which is a virtual camera).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the selected subset or the selected representation of the sensor data designated by the remote communication and received by the remote device comprises a selected view, rendered by the ego-object, of a projection of LiDAR or RADAR data captured by the ego-object (Ueda, paragraph [0071], "By placing a plurality of LIDARs 22 or mobile LIDAR 22, the moving speed of the object can also be measured. Furthermore, a three-dimensional modeling picture of the surrounding of the vehicle can be generated.").
Regarding claim 7, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises a visualization of the environment rendered through a virtual camera oriented toward a salient event detected in the physical environment by the ego-object (Ueda, paragraph [0098], "When an event requiring an emergency stop occurs (Y in S11), autonomous vehicle control device 10 stops autonomous vehicle 1 (S12), and transmits an emergency stop signal to remote control device 50 via network 2 (S13). Also after the emergency stop, autonomous vehicle control device 10 continues to transmit the sensed data sensed by sensing unit 20 to remote control device 50 (S14).", an emergency stop is a salient event, i.e. an important event, and the camera is facing towards whatever is deemed an emergency stop).
Regarding claim 10, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed by at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Ueda, paragraph [0097], "Autonomous vehicle control device 10 transmits sensed data sensed by sensing unit 20 to remote control device 50 via network 2 (S10). Remote control device 50 receives the sensed data (S20), generates a monitoring picture based on the sensed data, and displays the monitoring picture on display 54 (S21).", the remote control device is a control system for an autonomous machine/vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Ueda discloses one or more processors (Ueda, paragraph [0074], “As the hardware resource, a processor, ROM (Read-Only Memory), RAM (Random-Access Memory), and other LSI (Large-Scale Integration) can be employed. As the processor, CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), DSP (Digital Signal Processor), and the like, can be employed”), comprising: one or more circuits (Ueda, paragraph [0358], “The vehicle (1) includes an imaging circuit (21) configured to shoot a surrounding in at least a traveling direction of the vehicle (1), and a wireless communication circuit (131a) configured to transmit an image shot by the imaging circuit (21)”) to:
issue, to an ego-object in a physical environment, from a remote device in a remote location outside the physical environment, a remote communication (Ueda, paragraph [0066], “Furthermore, wireless LAN router 2a receives a signal transmitted from remote control device 50 to autonomous vehicle control device 10 via router 2d of remote monitoring center 5 and the Internet 2c, and transmits the signal to autonomous vehicle control device 10”).
Ueda does not teach “a remote communication defining a virtual camera”.
However, Shin teaches a remote communication defining a virtual camera (Shin, paragraph [0037], "In step 230, when the camera receives the successive image capture start signal from the remote controller, the camera successively captures images at a predetermined interval").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to create a remote command to capture images from Ueda’s vehicle, as taught by Shin.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to capture images from afar manually.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Ueda in view of Shin discloses receive, from the ego-object, by the remote device, a stream of surround view visualizations rendered by the ego-object using the virtual camera defined by the remote communication (Ueda, paragraph [0071], "By placing a plurality of LIDARs 22 or mobile LIDAR 22, the moving speed of the object can also be measured. Furthermore, a three-dimensional modeling picture of the surrounding of the vehicle can be generated.")
and cause a display visible to an operator of the remote device to present the stream of surround view visualizations of the physical environment (Ueda, paragraph [0097], "Autonomous vehicle control device 10 transmits sensed data sensed by sensing unit 20 to remote control device 50 via network 2 (S10). Remote control device 50 receives the sensed data (S20), generates a monitoring picture based on the sensed data, and displays the monitoring picture on display 54 (S21).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueda in view of Shin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the one or more processors of claim 11, the one or more processors of claim 11, the one or more circuits further to: detect, by the remote device, a salient event in the physical environment using sensor data received in the stream from the ego-object during a prior time slice (Ueda, paragraph [0090], "When an event requiring the emergency stop occurs, transmission data amount adjuster 114 controls such that all types of sensed data sensed by sensing unit 20 are transmitted to remote control device 50. Therefore, picture data are also included in the transmission target. In addition, when an event requiring the emergency stop occurs, transmission data amount adjuster 114 controls such that picture data with the highest picture quality is transmitted to remote control device 50"),
orient the virtual camera toward the salient event detected in the physical environment by the remote device; and issue the remote communication directing the ego-object to render the surround view visualizations through the virtual camera (Ueda, paragraph [0094], Fig. 6b below, "Picture generator 511 generates a picture to be displayed on display 54, based on sensed data received from autonomous vehicle control device 10, and two-dimensional or three-dimensional map data", the camera faces the salient event).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 10, additionally reciting one or more processors (Ueda, paragraph [0074], “As the hardware resource, a processor, ROM (Read-Only Memory), RAM (Random-Access Memory), and other LSI (Large-Scale Integration) can be employed. As the processor, CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), DSP (Digital Signal Processor), and the like, can be employed”). Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 10.
Claims 16-17 and 20 corresponds to claims 1-2 and 10 respectively, additionally reciting a system (Ueda, paragraph [0063], “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an entire configuration of a remote self-driving system according to the first exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure”), comprising:
one or more processors (Ueda, paragraph [0074], “As the hardware resource, a processor, ROM (Read-Only Memory), RAM (Random-Access Memory), and other LSI (Large-Scale Integration) can be employed. As the processor, CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), DSP (Digital Signal Processor), and the like, can be employed”). Thus, claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claims 1-2 and 10 respectively.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20190361436 A1) in view of Shin (US 20110115932 A1) and in further view of Maestas (US 9315152 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ego-object is a vehicle, the remote operator is a remote fleet operator (Ueda, paragraph [0095], “In the remote self-driving system according to this exemplary embodiment, it is supposed that a user (hereinafter, referred to as a monitor or a monitoring person) of remote control device 50 determines an action of restarting driving after autonomous vehicle 1 makes an emergency stop by, and autonomous vehicle control device 10 determines the other actions of autonomous vehicle 1 autonomously in principle.”).
While Ueda in view of Shin discloses the data stream representative of the physical environment visualized on the display visible to the remote fleet operator comprises a first video feed from outside the vehicle (Ueda, paragraph [0174], “Furthermore, visible light cameras 21 may be placed in four places, i.e., a front part, a rear part, a left part and a right part of the vehicle. In this case, a front picture, a rear picture, a left picture, and a right picture shot by visible light cameras 21 are combined, and thereby a bird's eye picture/omnidirectional picture can be generated”), they do not teach “a second video feed from inside a cabin of the vehicle”.
However, Maestas teaches a second video feed (Maestas, Col. 7, Line 10-12, “The remote receiver 66, under control of the remote processor 62, is configured to receive the collected data transmitted by the cabin transmitter 42 described above”) from inside a cabin of the vehicle (Maestas, Col. 5, Line 24-29, “The cabin camera 28 and cabin microphone 32 are in data communication with the cabin processor 26 such that the cabin processor 26, when executing respective programming instructions, selectively causes the collection of video and audio data from inside the vehicle cabin”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement a video remote video feed that captures activity from inside the vehicle of Ueda (in view of Shin), as taught by Maestas.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to record incidents that may happen within a car, such as theft or vandalism.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueda in view of Shin and in further view of Maestas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 3, additionally reciting the system of claim 16 (Ueda, paragraph [0063], “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an entire configuration of a remote self-driving system according to the first exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure”). Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20190361436 A1) in view of Shin (US 20110115932 A1) and in further view of Chen (US 20210012117 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1.
Ueda in view of Shin does not teach “wherein the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises directional audio steered by the ego-object toward a direction: i) associated with a salient event detected in the physical environment by the ego-object, or ii) designated by the remote communication”.
However, Chen teaches wherein the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises directional audio steered by the ego-object toward a direction: i) associated with a salient event detected in the physical environment by the ego-object, or ii) designated by the remote communication (Chen, paragraph [0007], "According to an aspect of an embodiment of the present invention, a method for controlling a vehicle is provided, comprising: receiving a plurality of visual sensor signals containing three-dimensional visual information outside and inside the vehicle; receiving a plurality of audio sensor signals containing three-dimensional audio information outside and inside the vehicle").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to equip Ueda’s (in view of Shin) vehicle with audio sensors, as taught by Chen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to pick up audios that may be useful in situations such as a conversation about a car crash.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueda in view of Shin and in further view of Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 5, additionally reciting the one or more processors of claim 11 (Ueda, paragraph [0074], “As the hardware resource, a processor, ROM (Read-Only Memory), RAM (Random-Access Memory), and other LSI (Large-Scale Integration) can be employed. As the processor, CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), DSP (Digital Signal Processor), and the like, can be employed”). Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20190361436 A1) in view of Shin (US 20110115932 A1) and in further view of Wang (US 20170330034 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1.
Ueda in view of Shin does not teach “wherein the visualization of the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises a three-dimensional augmented reality or virtual reality representation of the physical environment rendered on the remote device”.
However, Wang teaches wherein the visualization of the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises a three-dimensional augmented reality or virtual reality representation of the physical environment rendered on the remote device (Wang, paragraph [0016], "The augmented image is transmitted to the first autonomous vehicle, where the augmented image is to be displayed on a display device within the autonomous vehicle in a virtual reality manner").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement a virtual reality display unit into Ueda’s (in view of Shin) invention that represents its captured environment in a virtual setting, as taught by Wang.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to simplify the live stream video footage of what the cameras are capturing, resulting in easier understanding of the vehicles’ surroundings.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueda in view of Shin and in further view of Wang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20190361436 A1) in view of Shin (US 20110115932 A1) and in further view of Kim (US 20200005649 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the method of claim 1.
Ueda in view of Shin does not teach “wherein the remote communication is a command summoning the ego-object or instructing the ego-object to self-park, and the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises a video feed generated by the ego-object while self-maneuvering in response to the remote communication”.
However, Kim teaches wherein the remote communication is a command summoning the ego-object or instructing the ego-object to self-park, and the data stream representative of the physical environment comprises a video feed generated by the ego-object while self-maneuvering in response to the remote communication (Kim, paragraph [0110], Fig. 3 below, "The PAPS may start automated parking maneuver in response to the selection of the slot. Driver/operator information may be “system is controlling obstacles along the path.” For example, the display inside the vehicle may graphically display a video which shows the vehicle, the parking lines and obstacles").
PNG
media_image2.png
358
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement a self-parking software into Ueda’s (in view of Shin) vehicle and display its surroundings when parking, as taught by Kim.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce stress of drivers who struggle with parking and allow those who are physically unable/weak to park easier.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueda in view of Shin and in further view of Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9, additionally reciting the system of claim 16 (Ueda, paragraph [0063], “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an entire configuration of a remote self-driving system according to the first exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure”). Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 9.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20190361436 A1) in view of Shin (US 20110115932 A1) and in further view of Myhre (US 20190377181 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ueda in view of Shin discloses the one or more processors of claim 11.
Ueda in view of Shin does not teach “wherein the display visible to the operator of the remote device is an augmented or virtual reality (AR/VR) headset, the one or more circuits further to cause the AR/VR headset to present a three-dimensional representation of the surround view visualizations of the physical environment”.
However, Myhre teaches wherein the display visible to the operator of the remote device is an augmented or virtual reality (AR/VR) headset, the one or more circuits further to cause the AR/VR headset to present a three-dimensional representation of the surround view visualizations of the physical environment (Myhre, paragraph [0005], “An electronic device such as a head-mounted device may have one or more near-eye displays that produce images for a user. The head-mounted device may be a pair of virtual reality glasses or may be an augmented reality headset that allows a viewer to view both computer-generated images and real-world objects in the viewer's surrounding environment”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use an augmented reality headset to view the surroundings of Ueda’s (in view of Shin) vehicle, as taught by Myhre.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to experience a drive in real time and gain a better understanding of a driving experience.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to Ueda in view of Shin and in further view of Myhre to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights