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 .
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed see page 6-7, filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kuhara in view of Patterson fails to teach or suggest at least: “setting an allocation priority wherein the allocation priority is calculated based on an assistance priority,” and “adjusting the allocation priority based on an index.” The Examiner disagrees.
As explained in the Office Action, Kuhara expressly teaches determining which vehicle should receive direct operator attention first, using priority-type selection criteria. Kuhara discloses determining which mobile body will be remotely operated and which will follow, including selecting based on earliest arrival time and suitability: Kuhara teaches “determining a first mobile body to be remotely operated and a second mobile body to follow” out of a plurality of mobile bodies. See Kuhara [0019], [0053], [0070]-[0072]. Kuhara further teaches selecting the first mobile body using an urgency/priority proxy: “determining a mobile body that arrives at the remote operation point earliest as the first mobile body”. See Kuhara [0023], [0089], [0139]. Kuhara also teaches selecting based on “suitability for remote operation or following”. Kuhara [0025], [0090], [0092]. These teachings meet the substance of “calculated based on an assistance priority” because Kuhara’s system explicitly derives which vehicle should be served first (remote-operated by the operator) based on priority-driving factors (earliest arrival / suitability), which are classic assistance priority signals in remote-assistance dispatch.
Kuhara explicitly teaches changing assignment decisions based on changing conditions and additional selection information (i.e., adjusting priority/order using “index” type inputs.) Kuhara teaches that the system may change the assignment of which vehicle is the remote-operation target (first) and which is following (second) as conditions change: “determiner 13 may change the assignment of the remote operation target vehicle and the following vehicle according to the changing position of each vehicle, the scheduled arrival time, the remaining distance, etc.” Kuhara [0146]. Kuhara also teaches using restrictions and environmental/route factors to determine suitability (which functions as an index affecting priority): determining based on “a restriction on at least one of a moving time, a stop time, a moving speed, or a moving range”. Kuhara [0037], [0108], [0111] and determining suitability can depend on place/road conditions, because “the necessary suitability differs according to the place, the road width, etc.” Kuhara [0109]. These disclosures show that Kuhara’s system does not merely set a static priority; it updates/adjusts which vehicle gets operator resources based on additional parameters (position change, arrival time updates, remaining distance, restrictions, road-width-related suitability). Those parameters are “index” type inputs used to adjust allocation priority.
Applicant argues that the references allegedly do not “teach or suggest” the limitations, but do not meaningfully address the Office’s rationale. Kuhara is directed to reducing operator burden when multiple vehicles require remote operation around the same time/place, including selecting which vehicle is directly operated and allowing others to follow. Kuhara [0019]-[0020], [0054], [0148]. Patterson teaches a fleet backend with an operations person / remote assistance operator and the underlying computing architecture for implementing such management logic. Patterson [0047], [0044], [0023]-[0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Kuhara’s vehicle-selection/assignment (which inherently allocates operator resources among vehicles) in Patterson’s fleet remote-assistance architecture because both are in the same field of fleet management and remote assistance, and doing so predictably yields improved throughput and reduced operator workload as explicitly motivated by Kuhara. Kuhara [0020], [0054].
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara (US 20220326706 A1), in view of Patterson (US 20220042821 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuhara discloses an operator management system for managing allocation of a plurality of remote assistance operators to a plurality of vehicles transmitting a remote assistance request … [0019] “determining a first mobile body to be remotely operated and a second mobile body to follow the first mobile body, out of the plurality of mobile bodies specified; presenting remote operation of the first mobile body at the remote operation point to an operator, to cause the operator to perform the remote operation; and instructing the second mobile body to follow the first mobile body during the remote operation of the first mobile body.” [0155] “The predetermined event is, for example, an event that causes vehicle 50a to request remote operation, such as an event in which vehicle 50a is stuck or vehicle 50a cannot continue autonomous travel on its own.”,
the operator management system comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory storing executable instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to execute [0066] “remote control system 10 is a computer including a processor, memory, and the like. The memory is read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), etc., and can store a program executed by the processor”:
setting an allocation priority corresponding to contents … of the remote assistance request for each of the plurality of vehicles [0091] “the suitability [i.e., allocation priority] of each of the plurality of mobile bodies 50 for remote operation or following may be determined relatively between the plurality of mobile bodies 50.” [0182] “The monitoring priority of the second mobile body may be set higher than the other monitoring objects. Moreover, the monitoring priority of the second mobile body satisfying a specific condition may be set high. Examples of the specific condition include the condition that the remote operation point is a place with poor visibility, the condition that the number or density of obstacles such as people and parked vehicles in and around the remote operation point is greater than or equal to a threshold.” The system’s suitability [i.e., allocation priority] and establishing a relative priority ranking for vehicles is used to rank and prioritize operators’ assistance requests.
wherein the allocation priority is calculated based on an assistance priority [0025] “obtaining suitability and determining, based on the suitability: a mobile body suitable for remote operation as the first mobile body” [0092] “sensors of high performance large number of sensors operator is accustomed larger in size” [0108] “For example, determiner 13 may determine the second mobile body based on the suitability for following, the skill or experience of the operator in remote operation with following for mobile bodies 50, or a restriction on at least one of the moving time, the stop time, the moving speed, or the moving range” See also [0037], [0109], [0108], [0111] “a restriction on at least one of a moving time, a stop time, a moving speed, or a moving range” and “the necessary suitability differs according to the place, the road width, etc.” Kuhara calculates (i.e., determines) which vehicle should be handled directly by the operator using suitability/restrictions/skill /etc. Those are effectively the assistance priority factors (which request/vehicle should receive operator attention/priority).;
adjusting the allocation priority that is calculated based on the assistance priority based on an index [0146] “determiner 13 may change the assignment of the remote operation target vehicle and the following vehicle according to the changing position scheduled arrival time remaining distance, etc.” This is explicit adjustment of priority/assignment based on indexed values (position, scheduled arrival time, remaining distance). See also [0037], [0109], [0108], [0111] “a restriction on at least one of a moving time, a stop time, a moving speed, or a moving range” and “the necessary suitability differs according to the place, the road width, etc.”
in response to determining that the number of the plurality of vehicles is larger than the number of the plurality of remote assistance operators and determining that the allocation priority of the first vehicle is higher than the allocation priority of the second vehicle reassigning a remote assistance operator assigned to a second vehicle to a first vehicle [0114] “in the case where the load of remote control system 10 (for example, the operator) in the remote operation is greater than or equal to a threshold or the available capacity of remote control system 10 in the remote operation is less than a threshold or in the case where the factor that induces the remote operation is not an anomaly in mobile body 50 affecting its movement, presenter 14 may determine to perform the remote operation of the first mobile body with the following of the second mobile body, and present the remote operation of the first mobile body at the remote operation point to the operator to cause the operator to perform the remote operation.” [0146] “determiner 13 may change the assignment of the remote operation target vehicle and the following vehicle according to the changing position of each vehicle, the scheduled arrival time, the remaining distance, etc. The system indicating situations where the number of vehicles needing remote assistance exceeds the available operator’s threshold. [0182] “the monitoring priority of the second mobile body satisfying a specific condition may be set high.” The system allocation priorities are determined based on suitability and establishing a relative priority ranking for vehicles.
the first vehicle being one of the plurality of vehicles to which any remote assistance operator is not assigned, the second vehicle being one of the plurality of vehicles to which one of the pluralities of remote assistance operators is assigned [0091] “the suitability [i.e., allocation priority] of each of the plurality of mobile bodies 50 for remote operation or following may be determined relatively between the plurality of mobile bodies 50” [0092] “As another example, mobile body 50 [i.e., first vehicle] suitable for remote operation may be a mobile body larger in size than other mobile body 50 [i.e., second vehicle].” [0146] “determiner 13 may change the assignment of the remote operation target vehicle and the following vehicle according to the changing position of each vehicle, the scheduled arrival time, the remaining distance, etc. The system reassignment occurs when priorities are updated dynamically based on changing conditions
Kuhara does not teach the claim limitation regarding “including a driving decision requested of a remote assistance operator” and “…driving decision requested of the remove assistance operator of the remote”
However, Patterson teaches equivalent teachings wherein “including a driving decision requested of a remote assistance operator” and “…driving decision requested of the remove assistance operator of the remote” [0001] “Thus, such vehicles may be used to provide transportation services. Other systems which provide transportation services typically include drivers or conductors who are tasked with making decisions about how to operate vehicles.” [0047] “The client communication device 440 may represent a workstation for an operations person, for example, a remote assistance operator or someone who may provide remote assistance to a vehicle and/or a passenger. In other words, user 442 may represent a remote assistance operator. Although only a few passengers and remote assistance operator are shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, any number of such passengers and remote assistance operators (as well as their respective client computing devices) may be included in a typical system.” [0082] “In some instances, a confidence value may be included in the notification sent to the server computing devices. The confidence value may indicate how confident the computing devices 110 are in the change being an actual change. In such cases, the changes with higher confidence may automatically be used by the server computing devices 410 to generate new scouting objectives. Changes with lower confidence values may be sent for human review by the aforementioned remote assistance operators or another operator, and changes with really low confidence values might be scheduled for scouting to then get promoted to higher confidence (or go for human review).” (i.e., driving decision requested of a remote assistance operator.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to combine Kuhara and Patterson teachings to configure the remote-assistance workflow so that the remote-assistance request presented to the operator includes a driving decision requested of the operator, and to use that operator facing content when prioritizing and reassigning vehicles under operator shortage.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kuhara and Patterson teachings to improve operational effectiveness of the system [0082] “In some instances, a confidence value may be included in the notification sent to the server computing devices. The confidence value may indicate how confident the computing devices 110 are in the change being an actual change. In such cases, the changes with higher confidence may automatically be used by the server computing devices 410 to generate new scouting objectives. Changes with lower confidence values may be sent for human review by the aforementioned remote assistance operators or another operator, and changes with really low confidence values might be scheduled for scouting to then get promoted to higher confidence (or go for human review).” (i.e., driving decision requested of a remote assistance operator.)
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Kuhara and Patterson teaches the operator management system according to claim 1, Kuhara discloses wherein the setting the allocation priority includes updating the allocation priority for each of the plurality of vehicles in response to newly acquiring the remote assistance request
[0085] “specifier 12 specifies a plurality of mobile bodies 50 predicted to pass the remote operation point in the same time period, based on, as the position of at least one operational mobile body 50, the position of mobile body 50 that requests remote operation.” [0132] “obtainer 11 obtains vehicle position information, travel information, and remote operation point information (Step S21). For example, obtainer 11 obtains a remote operation point known beforehand, obtains, out of the plurality of mobile bodies 50 (hereafter also referred to as vehicles) managed by remote control system 10, the position of each of a plurality of vehicles located around the remote operation point, and obtains the travel information (travel route, arrival time at each travel location, etc.) of each of the plurality of vehicles.” The system dynamically adjusts priorities based on new data from the vehicle [e.g., location and timing]. [0158] “In the case where remote-control system 10 determines that there is a subsequent vehicle (for example, vehicle 50b) behind vehicle 50a, remote control system 10 determines whether vehicle 50b is a vehicle that requires remote operation (Step S43).” [0160] “Moreover, in the case where remote-control system 10 determines that vehicle 50b is a vehicle that requires remote operation, remote control system 10 instructs vehicle 50b to follow vehicle 50a (Step S45).” The described mechanism involves ranking vehicles to determine which requires immediate operator assistant.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Kuhara and Patterson teaches the operator management system according to claim 1, Kuhara discloses wherein the remote assistance request includes one or more assistance request items [0079] “The remote operation point is a point at which mobile body 50 needs to be remotely operated, that is, a point at which such a predetermined event that causes mobile body 50 to require remote operation occurs. The predetermined event is, for example, an event in which mobile body 50 is stuck or mobile body 50 cannot continue autonomous movement on its own.” The event described in [0079], [e.g., a vehicle being stuck or unable to move] corresponds to assistant request item as they represent trigger requiring operator assistance. and the setting the allocation priority includes: calculating an assistance priority for each of the one or more assistance request items [0091] “the suitability [i.e., allocation priority] of each of the plurality of mobile bodies 50 for remote operation or following may be determined relatively between the plurality of mobile bodies 50.”; and setting the allocation priority based on the assistance priority [0182] “The monitoring priority of the second mobile body may be set higher than the other monitoring objects. Moreover, the monitoring priority of the second mobile body satisfying a specific condition may be set high. Examples of the specific condition include the condition that the remote operation point is a place with poor visibility, the condition that the number or density of obstacles such as people and parked vehicles in and around the remote operation point is greater than or equal to a threshold.” The system allocation priorities are determined based on suitability and establishing a relative priority ranking for vehicles.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Kuhara and Patterson teaches the operator management system according to claim 3, Kuhara discloses wherein the setting the allocation priority includes updating the allocation priority in response to a portion of the one or more assistance request items being processed by the remote assistance operator [0087] “For example, in the case where there is a traffic jam near the remote operation point, many mobile bodies 50 are predicted to pass the remote operation point in the same time period.” [0146] “determiner 13 may change [i.e., updating the allocation priority] the assignment of the remote operation target vehicle and the following vehicle according to the changing position of each vehicle, the scheduled arrival time, the remaining distance, etc. For example, in the case where the following vehicle has come to be located ahead of the remote operation target vehicle while the determined remote operation target vehicle and following vehicle are travelling to the remote operation point, determiner 13 may redetermine the determined following vehicle as the remote operation target vehicle and redetermine the determined remote operation target vehicle as the following vehicle” The system is capable to update priorities dynamically based on real-time changes in the vehicle position or timing. Dynamic reassignment of priorities reflects updates due to partially processed assistance requests.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Kuhara and Patterson teaches the operator management system according to claim 4, Kuhara does not disclose “wherein each of the plurality of vehicles is an autonomous vehicle traveling in accordance with a driving plan which is a combination of a plurality of driving decisions and each of the plurality of vehicles is configured to transmit, as the remote assistance request, the driving plan in response to the one or more assistance request items being added to the plurality of driving decisions”
However, Patterson teaches equivalent teachings wherein each of the plurality of vehicles is an autonomous vehicle traveling in accordance with a driving plan which is a combination of a plurality of driving decisions and each of the plurality of vehicles is configured to transmit, as the remote assistance request, the driving plan in response to the one or more assistance request items being added to the plurality of driving decisions [0040] “The computing devices 110 may use the positioning system 170 to determine the vehicle's location and perception system 172 to detect and respond to objects when needed to reach the location safely. Again, in order to do so, computing device 110 and/or planning system 168 may generate trajectories and cause the vehicle to follow these trajectories, for instance, by causing the vehicle to accelerate (e.g., by supplying fuel or other energy to the engine or power system 174 by acceleration system 162), decelerate (e.g., by decreasing the fuel supplied to the engine or power system 174, changing gears, and/or by applying brakes by deceleration system 160), change direction (e.g., by turning the front or rear wheels of vehicle 100 by steering system 164), and signal such changes (e.g., by lighting turn signals).” [0082] “In some instances, a confidence value may be included in the notification sent to the server computing devices. The confidence value may indicate how confident the computing devices 110 are in the change being an actual change. In such cases, the changes with higher confidence may automatically be used by the server computing devices 410 to generate new scouting objectives. Changes with lower confidence values may be sent for human review by the aforementioned remote assistance operators or another operator, and changes with really low confidence values might be scheduled for scouting to then get promoted to higher confidence (or go for human review).” (i.e., driving decision requested of a remote assistance operator.) [0051] “The dispatching system 610 may also track the state of the vehicles using information that is periodically broadcast by the vehicles, specifically requested by the dispatching system and provided by the vehicles, or using other methods of tracking the states of a fleet of autonomous vehicles. This periodically broadcast information may include messages providing all state information for a given vehicle. For instance, state messages may be self-consistent and generated based on rules about packaging the messages from various systems of the vehicles.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to combine Kuhara and Patterson teachings to make the system to configure each autonomous vehicle to travel according to a driving plan comprised of multiple driving decisions/trajectories, and transmit that driving plan as part of the remote-assistance request when new assistance items arise.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kuhara and Patterson teachings to improve operational effectiveness of the system [0082] “In some instances, a confidence value may be included in the notification sent to the server computing devices. The confidence value may indicate how confident the computing devices 110 are in the change being an actual change. In such cases, the changes with higher confidence may automatically be used by the server computing devices 410 to generate new scouting objectives. Changes with lower confidence values may be sent for human review by the aforementioned remote assistance operators or another operator, and changes with really low confidence values might be scheduled for scouting to then get promoted to higher confidence (or go for human review).” (i.e., driving decision requested of a remote assistance operator.)
Regarding Claim 6, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 7, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662