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 .
This final action is in response to Applicant’s filing dated July 16, 2025. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been considered, as provided in more detail below. Claims 1-10 and 12 have been amended.
*Examiner Note: Claim language is bolded. Cited References and Applicant’s arguments are italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and considered moot because the arguments are directed toward subject matter that has not been previously considered and has necessitated new grounds of rejection as outlined below. While the new ground of rejection may rely on some of the previous references applied in the prior rejection of record, a new additional reference has been added and introduced for Applicant’s consideration given the amended independent claims as discussed in detail below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the drawing objections under 37 CFR 1.83(a), Applicant has amended the claim and the acquisition u nit and the operation unit are not recited. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the rejection. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC §112 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC §102, Applicant has amended the independent claims which have necessitated new grounds of rejections. While, new grounds of rejections have been outlined below, Examiner would like to point out that Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitation of “after the user terminal is brought into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle“ is not persuasive in overcoming the prior art rejection. Nabbe expressly teaches and illustrates that the “user device 230, etc. can be implemented by one or more computer systems” - see at least col. 10 ln. 55-56 of Nabbe and see at least col. 27 ln. 58-64 of Nabbe which discloses “an example computer system 900 that may be configured to include or execute any or all of the embodiments described above. In different embodiments, computer system 900 may be any of various types of devices, including, but not limited to, a personal computer system, desktop computer, laptop, notebook, tablet, slate, pad, or netbook computer, cell phone, smartphone”). Therefore, Nabbe’s user device 230 (e.g., a smartphone or portable user device) can be located within the vehicle 200 and communicate with the vehicle network system (VNS 210) and the remote control system 260 over the communication network 250. See col. 10 ln. 54-56 of Nabbe which discloses “ the VNS 210, remote control system 260, user device 230, etc. can be implemented by one or more computer systems” and Fig. 2 which illustrates a user device 230 connected to a user 240 in the vehicle 200. See at least col. 14 ln. 2-3 which discloses “the signal received from device 230 includes user identity information identifying user 240” as evidence of the system’s connection and the user device’s ability to be located in the vehicle. Thus, Nabbe teaches that the system acquires identification information from a user device located within the vehicle. Whether the user device was “brought into” the vehicle by a user immediately prior to acquisition is not a functional limitation but merely describes a desired environment. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Nabbe’s disclosure of acquiring user identity information from a user device located in the vehicle meets the newly recited limitation.
Further regarding the rejections under 35 USC §102, the additional amendments made to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejections as outlined below.
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 1-3, 5-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabbe (US 10,328,897 B1) in view of Morgan, JR. (US 2015/0102937A1).
Regarding amended claim 1, Nabbe discloses A remote operation device (Fig. 2, 260) that
remotely operates a vehicle (Fig. 1, 100 or Fig. 2, 200 and see at least col. 10 ln. 50-52 of Nabbe which discloses “The vehicle 200 and VNS 210 illustrated in FIG. 2 can include any of the embodiments of vehicles and VNSs, etc. included herein, including vehicle 100”), the remote operation device (Fig. 2, 260 and see at least col. 10 ln. 57-59 which discloses “a remote control system 260 which is configured to enable selectively engaged remote driving control of a vehicle 200 via a communication network 250”) comprising:
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 9, 920 and see at least col. 28 ln. 42-43 of Nabbe which discloses “System memory 920 may be configured to store program instructions, data, etc. accessible by processor 910” and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”), and
a processor (Fig. 9, 910 and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 of Nabbe which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire identification information (see at least col. 14 ln. 2-3 of Nabbe describes “the signal received from device 230 includes user identity information identifying user 240”, *Examiner interprets this identity information to be identification information. Also, see at least col. 11 ln. 26-29 of Nabbe which discloses “System 262 can determine an identity of the vehicle 200, which can include contact address information which indicates a contact address of the vehicle via which system 260 can communicate with VNS 210 via network 250”, *Examiner interprets system 262 to be a system that acquires identification information in the form of an address of the vehicle which will be associated with a user in the vehicle) associated with a user terminal (Fig. 2, 210 & 230 and see at least col. 10 ln. 53-56 of Nabbe which discloses “the VNS 210, remote control system 260, user device 230, etc. can be implemented by one or more computer systems” and see at least col. 27 ln. 58 – col. 28 ln. 5 which discloses “FIG. 9 illustrates an example computer system 900 that may be configured to include or execute any or all of the embodiments described above. In different embodiments, computer system 900 may be any of various types of devices, including, but not limited to … cell phone, smartphone, PDA, portable media device, … a mobile device, … or in general any type of computing or electronic device”, *Examiner interprets these devices to be the claimed user terminal since para. [0031] of Applicant’s specification describes “The user terminal 120 is a device to be used by a user. The user terminal 120 may be, for example, a mobile device such as a smartphone”) in the vehicle (Fig. 2 illustrates user terminal 210 in the vehicle 200 and as described above, the user terminal 210 and the user terminal 230 can be a mobile device or smartphone which is capable of being located within the vehicle if so desired);
grant operation authorization for remotely operating the vehicle to the user terminal associated with the acquired identification information (see at least col. 11 ln. 30-36 of Nabbe which discloses “an authorization system 264 which is configured to generate a remote control authorization request signal, based on the determination at system 262 that remote driving control of vehicle 200 at system 260 is requested. The authorization request signal includes a request for authorization of remote driving control of the vehicle 220”, *Examiner interprets the remote control authorization request signal will grant operation authorization for remote operation of the vehicle); and
remotely operate the vehicle in accordance with an operation instruction transmitted (see at least col. 12 ln. 25-32 of Nabbe which discloses “a navigation system 266 which is configured to generate remote driving command signals, also referred to herein as remote driving commands, which are communicated to VNS 210 over network 250 and, when received at VNS 210, are executed by the VNS 210 to navigate the vehicle 200 according to the remote driving command signals, so that vehicle is navigated according to remote driving control of vehicle 200 at system 260”) from the user terminal having the operation authorization (see at least col. 10 ln. 66 – col. 11 ln. 3 of Nabbe which discloses “The VNS 210 includes a remote control request module 222 that is configured to generate a remote control request signal which includes a request for system 260 to engage remote driving control of vehicle 200” and see at least col. 13 ln. 26-29 which discloses “The authorization signal communicated from system 260 to device 230 can include an authorization request for a user 240 supported by the device 230 to authorize remote driving control of the vehicle 200”, *Examiner interprets this information as being received from the user terminal 210/230 and that the user terminal 210/230 has the operation authorization).
Nabbe does disclose a user terminal in the vehicle (see at least col. 6 ln. 19-21 of Nabbe
which discloses “one or more sensors 114 generate sensor data regarding one or more particular positions within the vehicle interior”, *Examiner interprets that these positions within the vehicle are evidence that the user terminal may be brought into the vehicle by a user and may be in the vehicle).
Nabbe may not explicitly disclose acquiring information after the user terminal is brought
into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle; and in accordance with a determination that the identification information associated with the user terminal is acquired while the user terminal is located in the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morgan, JR. discloses acquiring information after
the user terminal is brought into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle (see at least para. [0016] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “a system 102 for indicating the presence of a mobile device 166 within a passenger cabin of the vehicle 100” and see at least para. [0025] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “one or more processors can execute logic to communicate with the vehicle computing device 114 in order to facilitate the indication of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100”, *Examiner interprets this as clear evidence of acquiring information after the user terminal/mobile device is confirmed to be inside the vehicle); and in accordance with a determination that the identification information associated with the user terminal is acquired while the user terminal is located in the vehicle (see at least para. [0030] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “The mobile device detection logic 244 c may be configured to cause the processor to detect whether the mobile device is within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100. The alert logic 244 d may be configured to cause the processor 132 to generate an audible indication to alert a vehicle user of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin”, *Examiner interprets this to be evidence that detection of the device’s presence inherently determines that any identification acquired at the time occurs while the device is inside of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the remote operation device of Nabbe to include acquiring information after the user terminal is brought into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle; and in accordance with a determination that the identification information associated with the user terminal is acquired while the user terminal is located in the vehicle; as taught in Morgan, JR. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively authorize vehicle operation when a user terminal is confirmed to be located within the vehicle for enhanced security and operational safety. See para. [0030] of Morgan, Jr. for motivation.
Regarding amended claim 2, Nabbe, as modified by Morgan, JR. discloses wherein the user
terminal (Fig. 2, 210 & 230 and see at least col. 10 ln. 53-56 of Nabbe which discloses “the VNS 210, remote control system 260, user device 230, etc. can be implemented by one or more computer systems” and see at least col. 27 ln. 58 – col. 28 ln. 5 of Nabbe which discloses “FIG. 9 illustrates an example computer system 900 that may be configured to include or execute any or all of the embodiments described above. In different embodiments, computer system 900 may be any of various types of devices, including, but not limited to … cell phone, smartphone, PDA, portable media device, … a mobile device, … or in general any type of computing or electronic device”, *Examiner interprets these devices to be the claimed user terminal since para. [0031] of Applicant’s specification describes “The user terminal 120 is a device to be used by a user. The user terminal 120 may be, for example, a mobile device such as a smartphone”) located in the vehicle includes a user terminal located in the vehicle (see at least para. [0016] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “a system 102 for indicating the presence of a mobile device 166 within a passenger cabin of the vehicle 100” and see at least para. [0025] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “one or more processors can execute logic to communicate with the vehicle computing device 114 in order to facilitate the indication of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100”, *Examiner interprets this as clear evidence of acquiring information after the user terminal/mobile device is confirmed to be inside the vehicle); and see at least para. [0030] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “The mobile device detection logic 244 c may be configured to cause the processor to detect whether the mobile device is within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100. The alert logic 244 d may be configured to cause the processor 132 to generate an audible indication to alert a vehicle user of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin”, *Examiner interprets this to be evidence that detection of the device’s presence inherently determines that any identification acquired at the time occurs while the device is inside of the vehicle) when an activating state of the vehicle stops (see at least col. 17 ln. 62-67 of Nabbe which discloses “In addition, based on determining that remote driving control is terminated, one or more of system 260 and vehicle 200 can generate reset control signals 352, 353 which can be communicated to device 230 and can include a message, which can be provided to a user via interface 232, indicating that remote driving control of vehicle 200 is terminated”, *Examiner interprets this as a user terminal in the vehicle when an activating state of the vehicle stops or is terminated. and see at least col. 27 ln. 45-52 of Nabbe which discloses “At 813 and 814, a reset control command is generated, which, when executed by the VNS in the remote control vehicle, causes remote driving control of the vehicle to be disabled, based on a determination that remote control is to be terminated. The determination can be based on a particular interaction of an operator which a control interface of the remote control system, including an operator-initiated command to terminate remote driving control of the vehicle”, *Examiner interprets the remote driving control disablement as the activating state of the vehicle is stopping).
Regarding amended claim 3, Nabbe, as modified by Morgan, JR. discloses wherein the
processor (Fig. 9, 910 and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 of Nabbe which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”) is configured to execute the instructions to in a case where there is a plurality of user terminals in the vehicle, acquire the identification information for each of the plurality of user terminals, and grant the operation authorization to each of the plurality of user terminals associated with the acquired identification information (see at least col. 13 ln. 12-25 of Nabbe which discloses “Module 222 can determine whether to include authorization of the remote driving control in the request signal communicated to system 260 based on an identity of one or more users located in the vehicle 200. For example, where module 222 determines that an occupant of the vehicle 200 is not associated with a stored authorized user profile, module 222 can decline from including an authorization indication in the request signal. Where module 222 determines that an occupant of the vehicle 200 is associated with a stored authorized user profile, for example based on facial recognition monitoring of the occupant, interaction with a user device in proximity to the occupant, etc. module 222 can include an authorization indication in the request signal”).
Regarding amended claim 5, Nabbe, as modified by Morgan, JR. discloses wherein the
processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where the operation instruction is transmitted from the user terminal (Fig. 2, 230 of Nabbe) located in a position separated from either a current position (Fig. 2 of Nabbe illustrates the current position of vehicle 200) or a past position (see at least col. 18 ln. 56-57 of Nabbe et al. which discloses navigation “from a starting position to a selected driving destination location”, *Examiner interprets the starting position to be the past position and the selected driving destination is the current position) of the vehicle (see at least col. 12 ln. 58-65 of Nabbe which discloses “the remote control system 260 can selectively engage in remote driving control of a vehicle based on communication with a separate user device 230 which supports a separate user 240. In some embodiments, remote control system 260 authorizes remote driving control of a vehicle 200 based on interaction with a user device 230“, *Examiner interprets the separate user to be the user terminal that is located in a position that is separate from the current or past position of the vehicle as illustrated in Fig. 2 of Nabbe which shows the user terminal 230 to be separate from the current or past position of the vehicle 200) by a distance equal to or longer than a threshold distance (see at least col. 18 ln. 56-57 of Nabbe et al. which discloses navigation “from a starting position to a selected driving destination location”, *Examiner interprets the distance between the starting position and the selected driving destination location to be the threshold distance), within a threshold period of time (see at least col. 27 ln. 38-41 of Nabbe et al. which disclose “The remote control device can be configured to deactivate in the absence of receiving a command which includes the authorization passcode within a certain period of elapsed time”, *Examiner interprets the certain period of elapsed time to be the claimed threshold period of time) after the operation authorization is granted (see at least col. 11 ln. 30-36 of Nabbe which discloses “an authorization system 264 which is configured to generate a remote control authorization request signal, based on the determination at system 262 that remote driving control of vehicle 200 at system 260 is requested. The authorization request signal includes a request for authorization of remote driving control of the vehicle 220”, *Examiner interprets the remote control authorization request signal will grant operation authorization for remote operation of the vehicle, cancel the operation authorization of the user terminal (see at least col. 17 ln. 35-60 of Nabbe which discloses “remote control system 260 terminating remote driving control of vehicle 200. System 266 can determine to terminate remote driving control of vehicle 200 based at least in part upon one or more of a user-initiated command generated at interface 268, a determination, based on received sensor data from vehicle 200, that the vehicle 200 is located at a particular location proximate to one or more particular elements in the environment, etc. For example, system 266 can determine, based on processing sensor data received from vehicle 200 via network 250, that the vehicle is stopped within a threshold proximity of a particular static element in the environment, including a hospital. The system 266 can provide an operator with a prompt to command remote driving control termination, via interface 268. Based on determining that remote driving control is to be terminated, system 266 can generate a reset control signal which is communicated 351 to vehicle 200 via network 250. Module 224, upon receiving the reset control signal, can disable remote driving control mode of the vehicle 200, which can include switching the driving control mode of the vehicle to autonomous driving control and engaging in autonomously navigating the vehicle along a selected driving route to a selected location, including a proximate parking space”).
Regarding amended claim 6, Nabbe, as modified by Morgan, JR. discloses wherein the
processor (Fig. 9, 910 and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 of Nabbe which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”) is configured to execute the instructions to cancel the operation authorization (see at least col. 17 ln. 38-61 of Nabbe which discloses “remote control system 260 terminating remote driving control of vehicle 200. System 266 can determine to terminate remote driving control of vehicle 200 based at least in part upon one or more of a user-initiated command generated at interface 268, a determination, based on received sensor data from vehicle 200, that the vehicle 200 is located at a particular location proximate to one or more particular elements in the environment, etc. For example, system 266 can determine, based on processing sensor data received from vehicle 200 via network 250, that the vehicle is stopped within a threshold proximity of a particular static element in the environment, including a hospital. The system 266 can provide an operator with a prompt to command remote driving control termination, via interface 268. Based on determining that remote driving control is to be terminated, system 266 can generate a reset control signal which is communicated 351 to vehicle 200 via network 250. Module 224, upon receiving the reset control signal, can disable remote driving control mode of the vehicle 200, which can include switching the driving control mode of the vehicle to autonomous driving control and engaging in autonomously navigating the vehicle along a selected driving route to a selected location, including a proximate parking space”), based on the vehicle having started up after the operation authorization is granted (see at least col. 17 ln. 39-42 of Nabbe which disclose “System 266 can determine to terminate remote driving control of vehicle 200 based at least in part upon one or more of a user-initiated command generated at interface 268, a determination, based on received sensor data from vehicle 200”, *Examiner interprets the user-initiated command to be the vehicle having started up after the grants for the operation authorization).
Regarding amended claim 10, Nabbe, as modified by Morgan, JR. discloses wherein the user
terminal located (see at least para. [0016] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “a system 102 for indicating the presence of a mobile device 166 within a passenger cabin of the vehicle 100” and see at least para. [0025] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “one or more processors can execute logic to communicate with the vehicle computing device 114 in order to facilitate the indication of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100”, *Examiner interprets this as clear evidence of acquiring information after the user terminal/mobile device is confirmed to be inside the vehicle); and see at least para. [0030] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “The mobile device detection logic 244 c may be configured to cause the processor to detect whether the mobile device is within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100. The alert logic 244 d may be configured to cause the processor 132 to generate an audible indication to alert a vehicle user of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin”, *Examiner interprets this to be evidence that detection of the device’s presence inherently determines that any identification acquired at the time occurs while the device is inside of the vehicle) in the vehicle includes a user terminal that has moved together with the vehicle (Fig. 2 illustrates user terminal 210 in the vehicle 200 and as described above, the user terminal 210 and the user terminal 230 can be a mobile device or smartphone which is capable of being located within the vehicle if so desired and see col. 13 ln. 65 – col. 14 ln. 6 which discloses “system 260 is configured to generate an authorization request signal to a particular VNS 210 of a particular vehicle 200 based on information included in a remote control request signal received from device 230. Where the signal received from device 230 includes user identity information identifying user 240, system 260 is configured to correlate the user identity information with vehicle identity information that identities a vehicle which is associated with the user identity information“, *Examiner interprets this to mean the user terminal has moved together with the vehicle since the information of the user can be used to identify the vehicle associated with the user).
Regarding claim 11, Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan, JR. disclose a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium that stores a computer program for causing a computer to function as the remote operation device according to claim 1 (see at least col. 30 ln. 20-25 of Nabbe which discloses “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium or memory medium such as magnetic or optical media, e.g., disk or DVD/CD-ROM, volatile or non-volatile media such as RAM (e.g. SDRAM, DDR, RDRAM, SRAM, etc.), ROM, etc. In some embodiments, a computer-accessible medium may include transmission media or signals such as electrical, electromagnetic, or digital signals, conveyed via a communication medium such as network and/or a wireless link”).
Regarding claim 12, Nabbe discloses acquiring (see at least col. 11 ln. 26-29 of Nabbe which
discloses “System 262 can determine an identity of the vehicle 200, which can include contact address information which indicates a contact address of the vehicle via which system 260 can communicate with VNS 210 via network 250”, *Examiner interprets system 262 to be the acquisition unit because this system acquires identification information such as address information associated with a vehicle in which a user is riding) identification information (see at least col. 11 ln. 26-29 of Nabbe which discloses “System 262 can determine an identity of the vehicle 200, which can include contact address information which indicates a contact address of the vehicle via which system 260 can communicate with VNS 210 via network 250”, *Examiner interprets system 262 to be the acquisition unit that acquires identification information in the form of an address of the vehicle which will be associated with a user in the vehicle and also note that col. 14 ln. 2-3 of Nabbe which describes “the signal received from device 230 includes user identity information identifying user 240”, *Examiner interprets this identity information to be identification information) associated with a user terminal (Fig. 2, 210 & 230 and see at least col. 10 ln. 53-56 of Nabbe which discloses “the VNS 210, remote control system 260, user device 230, etc. can be implemented by one or more computer systems” and see at least col. 27 ln. 58 – col. 28 ln. 5 of Nabbe which discloses “FIG. 9 illustrates an example computer system 900 that may be configured to include or execute any or all of the embodiments described above. In different embodiments, computer system 900 may be any of various types of devices, including, but not limited to … cell phone, smartphone, PDA, portable media device, … a mobile device, … or in general any type of computing or electronic device”, *Examiner interprets these devices to be the claimed user terminal since para. [0031] of Applicant’s specification describes “The user terminal 120 is a device to be used by a user. The user terminal 120 may be, for example, a mobile device such as a smartphone”) in the vehicle (Fig. 2 illustrates user terminal 210 in the vehicle 200 and as described above, the user terminal 210 and the user terminal 230 can be a mobile device or smartphone which is capable of being located within the vehicle if so desired); granting operation authorization (see at least col. 11 ln. 30-31 of Nabbe which discloses “an authorization system 264 which is configured to generate a remote control authorization request signal”) for remotely operating the vehicle to the user terminal associated with the acquired identification information (see at least col. 11 ln. 30-36 which discloses “an authorization system 264 which is configured to generate a remote control authorization request signal, based on the determination at system 262 that remote driving control of vehicle 200 at system 260 is requested. The authorization request signal includes a request for authorization of remote driving control of the vehicle 220”, *Examiner interprets the remote control authorization request signal will grant operation authorization for remote operation of the vehicle); and remotely operating (see at least col. 12 ln. 25-26 of Nabbe which discloses “a navigation system 266 which is configured to generate remote driving command signals”, *Examiner interprets command signals to result in the operation of the unit) the vehicle in accordance with an operation instruction transmitted (see at least col. 12 ln. 25-32 of Nabbe which discloses “a navigation system 266 which is configured to generate remote driving command signals, also referred to herein as remote driving commands, which are communicated to VNS 210 over network 250 and, when received at VNS 210, are executed by the VNS 210 to navigate the vehicle 200 according to the remote driving command signals, so that vehicle is navigated according to remote driving control of vehicle 200 at system 260”) from the user terminal having the operation authorization (see at least col. 10 ln. 66 – col. 11 ln. 3 of Nabbe which discloses “The VNS 210 includes a remote control request module 222 that is configured to generate a remote control request signal which includes a request for system 260 to engage remote driving control of vehicle 200” and see at least col. 13 ln. 26-29 which discloses “The authorization signal communicated from system 260 to device 230 can include an authorization request for a user 240 supported by the device 230 to authorize remote driving control of the vehicle 200”, *Examiner interprets this information as being received from the user terminal 210/230 and that the user terminal 210/230 has the operation authorization).
Nabbe does disclose a user terminal in the vehicle (see at least col. 6 ln. 19-21 of Nabbe
which discloses “one or more sensors 114 generate sensor data regarding one or more particular positions within the vehicle interior”, *Examiner interprets that these positions within the vehicle are evidence that the user terminal may be brought into the vehicle by a user and may be in the vehicle).
Nabbe may not explicitly disclose acquiring information after the user terminal is brought
into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle; and in accordance with a determination that the identification information associated with the user terminal is acquired while the user terminal is located in the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morgan, JR. discloses acquiring information after
the user terminal is brought into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle (see at least para. [0016] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “a system 102 for indicating the presence of a mobile device 166 within a passenger cabin of the vehicle 100” and see at least para. [0025] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “one or more processors can execute logic to communicate with the vehicle computing device 114 in order to facilitate the indication of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100”, *Examiner interprets this as clear evidence of acquiring information after the user terminal/mobile device is confirmed to be inside the vehicle); and in accordance with a determination that the identification information associated with the user terminal is acquired while the user terminal is located in the vehicle (see at least para. [0030] of Morgan, JR. which discloses “The mobile device detection logic 244 c may be configured to cause the processor to detect whether the mobile device is within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 100. The alert logic 244 d may be configured to cause the processor 132 to generate an audible indication to alert a vehicle user of the presence of a mobile device within the passenger cabin”, *Examiner interprets this to be evidence that detection of the device’s presence inherently determines that any identification acquired at the time occurs while the device is inside of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the remote operation device of Nabbe to include acquiring information after the user terminal is brought into the vehicle by a user of the user terminal and while the user terminal is located in the vehicle; and in accordance with a determination that the identification information associated with the user terminal is acquired while the user terminal is located in the vehicle; as taught in Morgan, JR. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively authorize vehicle operation when a user terminal is confirmed to be located within the vehicle for enhanced security and operational safety. See para. [0030] of Morgan, Jr. for motivation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabbe et al. (US 10,328,897 B1) in view of Morgan, JR. (US 2015/0102937A1) and further in view of Ishida (US 2021/0178959 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan, JR. discloses the processor (Fig. 9, 910 and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 of Nabbe which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”) is configured to execute the instructions a distance that has been traveled by the vehicle together with the user terminal (see at least col. 11 ln. 49- 50 of Nabbe et al. which discloses “one or more of a user device 230, an interface included in the vehicle 200” and see at least Fig. 1 of Nabbe et al. which illustrate the user terminal in the vehicle indicating that the user terminal and the vehicle travel together over a certain distance).
Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan, may not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case where a distance that has been traveled by the vehicle together with the user terminal is shorter than a threshold value, cease to grant the operation authorization to the user terminal.
However, Ishida et al. disclose wherein, in a case where a distance that has been traveled by the vehicle together with the user terminal is shorter than a threshold value (see at least para. [0205] of Ishida et al. which discloses “in a case where it is determined that the vehicle 2001 has not traveled the predetermined distance, the lamp control unit 2004 repeats a process of step S2111 until the traveling signal is transmitted“, *Examiner interprets this failure to travel the predetermined distance to be a case where the distance traveled by the vehicle and user terminal is shorter than a threshold value), cease to grant the operation authorization to the user terminal (see at least para. [0205] of Ishida et al. which discloses “in a case where it is determined that the vehicle 2001 has not traveled the predetermined distance, the lamp control unit 2004 repeats a process of step S2111 until the traveling signal is transmitted“, *Examiner interprets this repeat as a refusal to grant the operation authorization to the user terminal to conduct the next step because the loop repeats until the predetermined distance threshold value is met and see at least para. [0207] of Ishida et al. which discloses “the determination may be performed based on whether or not the vehicle 2001 has traveled the predetermined distance after the driver has approved the switching to the manual driving mode”, *Examiner interprets that since the driver is approving modes, the user terminal and vehicle are traveling together and the approval will not be granted if the distance traveled is shorter than a threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote operation device of Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan Jr. to include a case where a distance that has been traveled by the vehicle together with the user terminal is shorter than a threshold value, cease to grant the operation authorization to the user terminal as taught in Ishida with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively manage and authorize the vehicle operation. See para. [0207] of Ishida for motivation.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabbe et al. (US 10,328,897 B1) in view of Morgan, JR. (US 2015/0102937A1) and further in view of Komiya et al. (US 2013/0054069 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan discloses wherein the operation authorization (see at least col. 10 ln. 66 – col. 11 ln. 3 of Nabbe which discloses “The VNS 210 includes a remote control request module 222 that is configured to generate a remote control request signal which includes a request for system 260 to engage remote driving control of vehicle 200” and see at least col. 13 ln. 26-29 which discloses “The authorization signal communicated from system 260 to device 230 can include an authorization request for a user 240 supported by the device 230 to authorize remote driving control of the vehicle 200”, *Examiner interprets this information as being received from the user terminal 210/230 and that the user terminal 210/230 has the operation authorization) is first operation authorization, and the processor (Fig. 9, 910 and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 of Nabbe which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”) is configured to execute the instructions to grant second operation authorization to a user terminal (Fig. 2, 210 & 230) that has transmitted a use code (see at least col. 11 ln. 62 – col. 12 ln. 6 which discloses “where authorization request signal generated at system 264 includes a remote control password, module 225 can compare the password with a stored instance of vehicle identity data which includes a remote control password associated with vehicle 200 and can determine, based on determining that the password included in the authorization request matches with the stored password, that the authorization request is proper. The module 225 can generate an authorization signal based on a determination that the authorization request is proper, where the authorization signal includes information indicating that remote driving control of the vehicle 200 is authorized“), *Examiner interprets the passcode to be the claimed use code) indicated in the vehicle.
Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan, JR. may not explicitly disclose grant second operation authorization and maintain the second operation authorization when a power supply of the vehicle is activated.
However, Komiya et al. disclose a first operation authorization and grant a second operation authorization and maintain the second operation authorization when a power supply of the vehicle is activated (see at least para. [0046] of Komiya which discloses “The first battery managing section 104 included in the vehicle driving device 1 a of the first embodiment of the present invention carries out the above first operation and additionally either or both of the second operation and the third operation”, *Examiner interprets the battery managing section 104 to be the power supply and notes that Komiya discloses a first and second operation authorization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote operation device of Nabbe, as modified by Morgan, JR. to include a first and second operation authorization that maintains the second operation authorization when a power supply of the vehicle is activated as disclosed in Komiya with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate a user’s ability to effectively maintain a power source and control the vehicle when desired. See para. [0045] – [0047] of Komiya for motivation.
Regarding claim 9, Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan and Komiya, disclose wherein the vehicle is a shared car, and the processor (Fig. 9, 910 and see at least col. 2 ln. 67-col. 3 ln. 1 of Nabbe which discloses a “memory storing program instructions executable to implement the operation”) is configured to execute the instructions to grant (see at least col. 15 ln.12-20 of Nabbe which discloses “module 222 generates signal 310 based at least in part upon a remote driving control request signal 322 received from a user device 230 supporting one or more authorized users. In some embodiments, device 230 includes a remote access module 234 which is configured to generate a remote control request signal 322 which is transmitted to vehicle 200, and causes module 222 to generate remote control request signal 310, based on user interaction with one or more user interfaces of device 230”, *Examiner interprets that since there are multiple users, the vehicle is a shared car and the authorization grants remote operations as discussed above).
Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan and Komiya, may not explicitly disclose the third operation authorization that enables a predetermined number of times of remote operations to either a user terminal or a user designated by a user of the user terminal having the second operation authorization.
However, Komiya et al. disclose the third operation authorization that enables a predetermined number of times of remote operations to either a user terminal or a user designated by a user of the user terminal having the second operation authorization (see at least para. [0046] of Komiya which discloses “The first battery managing section 104 included in the vehicle driving device 1 a of the first embodiment of the present invention carries out the above first operation and additionally either or both of the second operation and the third operation”, *Examiner notes that Komiya discloses a first, second and third operation authorization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote operation device of Nabbe, as modified by Morgan and Komiya to include a third operation authorization that enables a predetermined number of times of remote operations to either a user terminal or a user designated by a user of the user terminal having the second operation authorization as taught in Komiya with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate a user’s ability to effectively maintain a power source and control the vehicle when desired. See para. [0045] – [0047] of Komiya for motivation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabbe et al. (US 10,328,897 B1) in view of Morgan, JR. (US 2015/0102937A1) and in view of Komiya et al. (US 2013/0054069 A1) and further in view of Jang (US 2020/0305142 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Nabbe et al., as modified by Morgan and Komiya, disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cancel the first operation authorization (see at least col. 17 ln. 39-60 of Nabbe which discloses “remote control system 260 terminating remote driving control of vehicle 200. System 266 can determine to terminate remote driving control of vehicle 200 based at least in part upon one or more of a user-initiated command generated at interface 268, a determination, based on received sensor data from vehicle 200, that the vehicle 200 is located at a particular location proximate to one or more particular elements in the environment, etc. For example, system 266 can determine, based on processing sensor data received from vehicle 200 via network 250, that the vehicle is stopped within a threshold proximity of a particular static element in the environment, including a hospital. The system 266 can provide an operator with a prompt to command remote driving control termination, via interface 268. Based on determining that remote driving control is to be terminated, system 266 can generate a reset control signal which is communicated 351 to vehicle 200 via network 250. Module 224, upon receiving the reset control signal, can disable remote driving control mode of the vehicle 200, which can include switching the driving control mode of the vehicle to autonomous driving control and engaging in autonomously navigating the vehicle along a selected driving route to a selected location, including a proximate parking space”), based on a first valid period having elapsed since the grant of the first operation authorization (see at least col. 27 ln. 38-41 which discloses “receiving a command which includes the authorization passcode within a certain period of elapsed time”, *Examiner interprets the certain period of elapsed time to be a first valid period).
Nabbe et al., as modified by Komiya, may not explicitly disclose canceling the second operation authorization, based on a second valid period having elapsed since the grant of the second operation authorization, and the first valid period is shorter than the second valid period.
However, Jang discloses based on a second valid period having elapsed since the grant of the second operation authorization, and the first valid period is shorter than the second valid period (see at least para. [0116] of Jang which discloses “the user equipment 710 may set the first period to be shorter and may set the second period to be longer”, *Examiner interprets the second valid period of Jang to have elapsed since the first valid period is shorter than the second valid period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote operation device of Nabbe, as modified by Komiya, to include n a second valid period having elapsed since the grant of the second operation authorization, and the first valid period is shorter than the second valid period as taught in Jang with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more effectively manage the granting of operation authorization.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Endo (US 2022/0405814 A1) discloses a vehicle diagnostic system is a system that provides a driving diagnosis service for transport vehicles such as taxis and trucks. The driving diagnosis service is a service to analyze a driving situation of a transport vehicle based on the vehicle information acquired. Yanaga et al. (US 2019/0366979 A1) discloses a management server that manages a vehicle, the server comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive a usage request for the vehicle from a user terminal of a renter; and a sending unit configured to send, to the user terminal, a virtual key that enables the vehicle to be used, wherein the virtual key is a key that permits a door of the vehicle to be unlocked and permits the renter to enter the vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA IVEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4896. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
/DANA D IVEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/D.D.I/October 15, 2025
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights