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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the application filed July 6, 2023.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 – 12 are pending and elected for examination.
Claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The amended title is acknowledged and recorded.
35 USC § 101
The applicant argues that the amendments to the independent claims render the 35 USC § 101 rejections moot. The examiner finds that the added limitation of suspend an operation of the remote operation service in the specific place adds a practical application of halting operations to the recited abstract idea. The rejection is therefore withdrawn in view of the amendments.
35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 and subsequently claim 6 and 9 have been considered but the examiner does not find the applicant’s argument persuasive to overcome the Hirano reference. The examiner does find that the amended limitation of suspending operation of the remote operation service in the specific place is not explicitly anticipated by Hirano, but as discussed in the subsequent Examination According to Amendments, the combination of Hirano’s location log and abnormality responses suspending operation render this limitation an obvious combination of the elements taught by Hirano. Considering claim 9, emphasizing and increased rate, this relative term renders the claim indefinite and in the absence of a comparison point, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes any increase, including a rate of abnormality reports changing from zero abnormalities, to any positive number, which is taught by Hirano as at least one anomaly detection.
Examination According to Amendments
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 6, 2023, has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “increase” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "increase" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The comparison entity of the rate of a number of the abnormality report information to yield the claimed increase is indefinite and the magnitude of such increase is not provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0208859 A1, with PCT priority filing September 1, 2020, the US Patent Application being used here for clarity of translation, hereinafter Hirano.
Regarding Claim 9, Hirano teaches A remote operation system (see at least Hirano Abstract: anomaly monitoring apparatus in a remote operation system for remotely operating a mobility entity) comprising: a plurality of moving bodies; a plurality of remote operator terminals respectively operated by a plurality of remote operators assigned to the plurality of moving bodies (see at least Hirano P0061: anomaly monitoring apparatus 10 may monitor a plurality of vehicle operation apparatuses 20 and a plurality of vehicle control apparatuses 30); and a management device configured to communicate with the plurality of moving bodies and the plurality of remote operator terminals, and to manage a remote operation service in which the plurality of remote operators remotely operate the plurality of moving bodies (see at least Hirano P0068: Communicator 101 communicates with vehicle operation apparatus 20 and vehicle control apparatus 30 over the external network and P0063: Vehicle operation apparatus 20 is a remote operation apparatus with which an operator remotely operates vehicle 40, accepting inputs of operation commands from the operator and transmitting the operation commands to vehicle control apparatus 30), wherein sensor-detected information detected by a sensor mounted on a moving body is transmitted to a remote operator terminal operated by a remote operator assigned to the moving body (see at least Hirano P0121: vehicle controller 303 obtains the speed or acceleration of vehicle 40 as information from a speed sensor or an accelerometer and P0117: The location information is obtained from a GPS or the like, as location information of vehicle 40 when a control command is executed by vehicle controller 303), and is presented to the remote operator via an output device of the remote operator terminal (see at least Hirano P0076: Anomaly notifier 106 makes a notification, to at least one of vehicle operation apparatus 20 or vehicle control apparatus 30), the remote operator remotely operates the moving body by operating a remote operation member provided in the remote operator terminal by referring to the presented sensor-detected information (see at least Hirano P0079: Operation command inputter 202 accepts the input of an operation command instructing control of vehicle 40 from an operator in charge of remotely operating vehicle 40 and Fig. 1 showing the connections between the vehicle 40, vehicle control apparatus 30, and vehicle operation apparatus 20 communicating over the external network to control the vehicle and to detect anomalies), a content of an abnormality related to a remote operation of the moving body is input to the remote operator terminal by the remote operator, the remote operator terminal generates, based on the input from the remote operator, abnormality report information indicating the content of the abnormality related to the remote operation of the moving body and transmits the abnormality report information to the management device (see at least Hirano P0034: An anomaly monitoring apparatus according to one aspect of the present disclosure is an anomaly monitoring apparatus in a remote operation system for remotely operating a mobility entity. The anomaly monitoring apparatus comprising: a log collector that collects an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobility entity… identifies an attack origin that caused the anomaly in the mobility entity from among a plurality of attack origins based on a result of comparing the operation log with the control log; and an anomaly notifier that makes a notification for taking a countermeasure for the attack origin identified by the attack origin identifier the examiner interprets collection of an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobile entity as an example of collecting inputs by the remote operator and the identification of an attack origin and notification as an example of abnormality report information indicating the content of the abnormality), the abnormality report information indicates at least one of: an abnormality of the output device input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: the first attack origin may include a malicious operation command being inserted into a communication path between the operation apparatus and the control apparatus); an abnormality of the remote operation member input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: ; the second attack origin may include an operator, who uses the operation apparatus, transmitting a malicious operation command); an abnormality of the sensor-detected information input by the remote operator; and an abnormality of a moving body state of the moving body input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0038: the attack origin identifier may identify a third attack origin… as the attack origin when an anomaly is present in only the location log the examiner interprets the location log as an example of sensor-detected information and moving body state), the abnormality report information further includes position information of the moving body (see at least Hirano P0038: the log collector may further collect a location log from the control apparatus), and the management device is further configured to: communicate with the plurality of remote operator terminals to collect the abnormality report information from the plurality of remote operator terminals (see at least Hirano Abstract: a log collector that collects an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobility entity, Fig. 1 showing the vehicle operation apparatus in a block diagram, and P0215: the divisions of the function blocks in the block diagrams are merely examples, and a plurality of function blocks may be realized as a single function block, a single function block may be divided into a plurality of function blocks); and when an increase rate of a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality related to a specific moving body among the plurality of moving bodies or a specific remote operator terminal among the plurality of remote operator terminals is equal to or greater than a rate threshold (see at least Hirano P0072: Anomaly detector 104 detects whether there is an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on at least one of the operation log or the control log. Anomaly detector 104 may detect whether there is an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on at least the operation log and the control log, for example. In the present embodiment, anomaly detector 104 detects an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on anomaly detection rules and the operation log, control log, and location log the examiner interprets detection of an anomaly in at least one log as an example of a threshold of at least one and indicating an increase in the rate of the number of abnormalities from zero to one, and the location log as described previously as an example of sensor-detected and moving body state information), suspend an operation of the specific moving body or the specific remote operator terminal (see at least Hirano P0158: when the attack origin is the communication path, with the anomaly countermeasure rules shown in FIG. 11, the attack is suppressed by stopping a remote control function of vehicle control apparatus 30 installed in vehicle 40, P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin).
Regarding Claim 12, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 9 and the abnormality report information indicates at least one of: the abnormality of the output device input by the remote operator and the abnormality of the remote operation member input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: the first attack origin may include a malicious operation command being inserted into a communication path between the operation apparatus and the control apparatus; the second attack origin may include an operator, who uses the operation apparatus, transmitting a malicious operation command… Through this, the anomaly monitoring apparatus can select and execute effective countermeasures according to the attack origin that is determined).
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, 3, 4, 6 – 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano.
Regarding Claim 1, Hirano teaches A management device for managing a remote operation service (see at least Hirano Abstract: anomaly monitoring apparatus in a remote operation system for remotely operating a mobility entity) in which a plurality of remote operators remotely operate a plurality of moving bodies (see at least Hirano P0061: anomaly monitoring apparatus 10 may monitor a plurality of vehicle operation apparatuses 20 and a plurality of vehicle control apparatuses 30), the management device comprising one or more processors (see at least Hirano P0212: the circuit may be implemented through a dedicated circuit, a generic processor, or the like) configured to: communicate with the plurality of moving bodies and a plurality of remote operator terminals respectively operated by the plurality of remote operators assigned to the plurality of moving bodies (see at least Hirano P0068: Communicator 101 communicates with vehicle operation apparatus 20 and vehicle control apparatus 30 over the external network and P0063: Vehicle operation apparatus 20 is a remote operation apparatus with which an operator remotely operates vehicle 40, accepting inputs of operation commands from the operator and transmitting the operation commands to vehicle control apparatus 30), wherein sensor-detected information detected by a sensor mounted on a moving body is transmitted to a remote operator terminal operated by a remote operator assigned to the moving body (see at least Hirano P0121: vehicle controller 303 obtains the speed or acceleration of vehicle 40 as information from a speed sensor or an accelerometer and P0117: The location information is obtained from a GPS or the like, as location information of vehicle 40 when a control command is executed by vehicle controller 303), and is presented to the remote operator via an output device of the remote operator terminal (see at least Hirano P0076: Anomaly notifier 106 makes a notification, to at least one of vehicle operation apparatus 20 or vehicle control apparatus 30), the remote operator remotely operates the moving body by operating a remote operation member provided in the remote operator terminal by referring to the presented sensor-detected information (see at least Hirano P0079: Operation command inputter 202 accepts the input of an operation command instructing control of vehicle 40 from an operator in charge of remotely operating vehicle 40 and Fig. 1 showing the connections between the vehicle 40, vehicle control apparatus 30, and vehicle operation apparatus 20 communicating over the external network to control the vehicle and to detect anomalies), a content of an abnormality related to a remote operation of the moving body is input to the remote operator terminal by the remote operator, the remote operator terminal generates, based on the input from the remote operator, abnormality report information indicating the content of the abnormality related to the remote operation of the moving body and transmits the abnormality report information to the management device (see at least Hirano P0034: An anomaly monitoring apparatus according to one aspect of the present disclosure is an anomaly monitoring apparatus in a remote operation system for remotely operating a mobility entity. The anomaly monitoring apparatus comprising: a log collector that collects an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobility entity… identifies an attack origin that caused the anomaly in the mobility entity from among a plurality of attack origins based on a result of comparing the operation log with the control log; and an anomaly notifier that makes a notification for taking a countermeasure for the attack origin identified by the attack origin identifier the examiner interprets collection of an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobile entity as an example of collecting inputs by the remote operator and the identification of an attack origin and notification as an example of abnormality report information indicating the content of the abnormality), the abnormality report information indicates at least one of: an abnormality of the output device input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: the first attack origin may include a malicious operation command being inserted into a communication path between the operation apparatus and the control apparatus); an abnormality of the remote operation member input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: ; the second attack origin may include an operator, who uses the operation apparatus, transmitting a malicious operation command); an abnormality of the sensor-detected information input by the remote operator; and an abnormality of a moving body state of the moving body input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0038: the attack origin identifier may identify a third attack origin… as the attack origin when an anomaly is present in only the location log the examiner interprets the location log as an example of sensor-detected information and moving body state), the abnormality report information further includes position information of the moving body (see at least Hirano P0038: the log collector may further collect a location log from the control apparatus), and the one or more processors are further configured to: communicate with the plurality of remote operator terminals to collect the abnormality report information from the plurality of remote operator terminals (see at least Hirano Abstract: a log collector that collects an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobility entity, Fig. 1 showing the vehicle operation apparatus in a block diagram, and P0215: the divisions of the function blocks in the block diagrams are merely examples, and a plurality of function blocks may be realized as a single function block, a single function block may be divided into a plurality of function blocks); when a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality of at least one of the sensor-detected information and the moving body state regarding moving bodies present in a specific place is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Hirano P0072: Anomaly detector 104 detects whether there is an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on at least one of the operation log or the control log. Anomaly detector 104 may detect whether there is an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on at least the operation log and the control log, for example. In the present embodiment, anomaly detector 104 detects an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on anomaly detection rules and the operation log, control log, and location log the examiner interprets detection of an anomaly in at least one log as an example of a threshold of at least one, and the location log as described previously as an example of sensor-detected and moving body state information)irano Hi, determine that there is an abnormality in the specific place (see at least Hirano P0132: anomaly detector 104 can detect anomalies which can be determined from a combination of at least two logs, in addition to anomalies which can be determined from an operation command alone, anomalies which can be determined from a control command alone, and anomalies which can be determined from location information alone and P0039: when an anomaly is detected in only the location log, it is highly likely that a third party has physically approached the mobility entity and caused an anomaly in the mobility entity. Accordingly, the anomaly monitoring apparatus can appropriately identify the cause of the anomaly in the mobility entity when an anomaly is detected in only the location log among the operation log, the control log, and the location log the examiner interprets anomalies determined from location information as an example of an abnormality in a specific place) and suspend an operation of the remote operation service in the specific place (see at least Hirano P0158: when the attack origin is the communication path, with the anomaly countermeasure rules shown in FIG. 11, the attack is suppressed by stopping a remote control function of vehicle control apparatus 30 installed in vehicle 40, P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin, and make a notification for performing a warning to a periphery of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the third attack origin and P0224: Aspects realized by combining the constituent elements and functions described in the foregoing embodiment and variations as desired are also included in the scope of the present disclosure)
Hirano teaches that remote operation can be suspended when an anomaly is detected in any one or combination of the operation, control, and location logs (see at least P0039) and selection of an effective countermeasure can be selected based on the type of attack (see at least P0041). Hirano explicitly describes the response to specific location data anomalies identified as a third attack origin; their system makes a notification for performing a warning to a periphery of the control apparatus (see at least P0040). Hirano further describes a misalignment in the control and execution which may include sensor-detected actions (see at least P0131 and P0110 describing actions A, B, and C). It would be an obvious combination to use the teachings of Hirano, who also specifies that the functions described in the specification may be combined and varied (see at least P0224) to suspend remote operation (the exemplary response to communication and control anomalies and attacks) in response to location anomalies or other sensor-detected anomalies such as door opening states and presence detection (see also at least P0110). Therefore, this element of remote operation suspension in a specific location responsive to sensor-detected information is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatorily in view of the teachings of Hirano.
Regarding Claim 3, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 1 and when a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality of at least one of the output device, the remote operation member, and the sensor-detected information related to a specific remote operator terminal is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Hirano Fig. 15 S1502: Anomaly in at least one of operation log, control log, or location log the examiner interprets at least one anomaly as an example of a threshold of one and the operation log as an example of the remote operation member system and the location log as an example of sensor-detected information (see also at least P0009 and P0117)), the one or more processors determine that there is an abnormality in the specific remote operator terminal (see at least Hirano Fig. 10 showing anomaly type number 2 corresponding to an operator attack) and exclude the specific remote operator terminal from the operation of the remote operation service (see at least Hirano P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin).
Regarding Claim 4, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 1 and when a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality of at least one of the sensor-detected information and the moving body state related to a specific moving body is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Hirano Fig. 15 S1502: Anomaly in at least one of operation log, control log, or location log the examiner interprets at least one anomaly as an example of a threshold of one and the location log as an example of sensor-detected information (see also at least P0117)), the one or more processors determine that there is an abnormality in the specific moving body (see at least Hirano P0112: By obtaining and referring to the control log, anomaly detector 104 can detect action C being executed despite vehicle 40 not having operation permissions for action C as an anomaly, for example. In this case, information pertaining to operations for which vehicle 40 does not have permissions is stored in advance in anomaly monitoring apparatus 10 the examiner interprets action C executed on a particular vehicle 40 despite lacking permissions as an example of an abnormality in the specific moving body) and exclude the specific moving body from the operation of the remote operation service (see at least Hirano P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin the examiner interprets stopping remote control and revoking access as examples of excluding the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 6, Hirano teaches A remote operation system (see at least Hirano Abstract: anomaly monitoring apparatus in a remote operation system for remotely operating a mobility entity) comprising: a plurality of moving bodies; a plurality of remote operator terminals respectively operated by a plurality of remote operators assigned to the plurality of moving bodies (see at least Hirano P0061: anomaly monitoring apparatus 10 may monitor a plurality of vehicle operation apparatuses 20 and a plurality of vehicle control apparatuses 30); and a management device configured to communicate with the plurality of moving bodies and the plurality of remote operator terminals, and to manage a remote operation service in which the plurality of remote operators remotely operate the plurality of moving bodies (see at least Hirano P0068: Communicator 101 communicates with vehicle operation apparatus 20 and vehicle control apparatus 30 over the external network and P0063: Vehicle operation apparatus 20 is a remote operation apparatus with which an operator remotely operates vehicle 40, accepting inputs of operation commands from the operator and transmitting the operation commands to vehicle control apparatus 30), wherein sensor-detected information detected by a sensor mounted on a moving body is transmitted to a remote operator terminal operated by a remote operator assigned to the moving body (see at least Hirano P0121: vehicle controller 303 obtains the speed or acceleration of vehicle 40 as information from a speed sensor or an accelerometer and P0117: The location information is obtained from a GPS or the like, as location information of vehicle 40 when a control command is executed by vehicle controller 303), and is presented to the remote operator via an output device of the remote operator terminal (see at least Hirano P0076: Anomaly notifier 106 makes a notification, to at least one of vehicle operation apparatus 20 or vehicle control apparatus 30), the remote operator remotely operates the moving body by operating a remote operation member provided in the remote operator terminal by referring to the presented sensor-detected information (see at least Hirano P0079: Operation command inputter 202 accepts the input of an operation command instructing control of vehicle 40 from an operator in charge of remotely operating vehicle 40 and Fig. 1 showing the connections between the vehicle 40, vehicle control apparatus 30, and vehicle operation apparatus 20 communicating over the external network to control the vehicle and to detect anomalies), a content of an abnormality related to a remote operation of the moving body is input to the remote operator terminal by the remote operator, the remote operator terminal generates, based on the input from the remote operator, abnormality report information indicating the content of the abnormality related to the remote operation of the moving body and transmits the abnormality report information to the management device (see at least Hirano P0034: An anomaly monitoring apparatus according to one aspect of the present disclosure is an anomaly monitoring apparatus in a remote operation system for remotely operating a mobility entity. The anomaly monitoring apparatus comprising: a log collector that collects an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobility entity… identifies an attack origin that caused the anomaly in the mobility entity from among a plurality of attack origins based on a result of comparing the operation log with the control log; and an anomaly notifier that makes a notification for taking a countermeasure for the attack origin identified by the attack origin identifier the examiner interprets collection of an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobile entity as an example of collecting inputs by the remote operator and the identification of an attack origin and notification as an example of abnormality report information indicating the content of the abnormality), the abnormality report information indicates at least one of: an abnormality of the output device input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: the first attack origin may include a malicious operation command being inserted into a communication path between the operation apparatus and the control apparatus); an abnormality of the remote operation member input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: ; the second attack origin may include an operator, who uses the operation apparatus, transmitting a malicious operation command); an abnormality of the sensor-detected information input by the remote operator; and an abnormality of a moving body state of the moving body input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0038: the attack origin identifier may identify a third attack origin… as the attack origin when an anomaly is present in only the location log the examiner interprets the location log as an example of sensor-detected information and moving body state), the abnormality report information further includes position information of the moving body (see at least Hirano P0038: the log collector may further collect a location log from the control apparatus), and the management device is further configured to: communicate with the plurality of remote operator terminals to collect the abnormality report information from the plurality of remote operator terminals (see at least Hirano Abstract: a log collector that collects an operation log from an operation apparatus which remotely operates the mobility entity, Fig. 1 showing the vehicle operation apparatus in a block diagram, and P0215: the divisions of the function blocks in the block diagrams are merely examples, and a plurality of function blocks may be realized as a single function block, a single function block may be divided into a plurality of function blocks); and when a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality of at least one of the sensor-detected information and the moving body state regarding moving bodies present in a specific place is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Hirano P0072: Anomaly detector 104 detects whether there is an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on at least one of the operation log or the control log. Anomaly detector 104 may detect whether there is an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on at least the operation log and the control log, for example. In the present embodiment, anomaly detector 104 detects an anomaly in vehicle 40 based on anomaly detection rules and the operation log, control log, and location log the examiner interprets detection of an anomaly in at least one log as an example of a threshold of at least one, and the location log as described previously as an example of sensor-detected and moving body state information), determine that there is an abnormality in the specific place (see at least Hirano P0132: anomaly detector 104 can detect anomalies which can be determined from a combination of at least two logs, in addition to anomalies which can be determined from an operation command alone, anomalies which can be determined from a control command alone, and anomalies which can be determined from location information alone and P0039: when an anomaly is detected in only the location log, it is highly likely that a third party has physically approached the mobility entity and caused an anomaly in the mobility entity. Accordingly, the anomaly monitoring apparatus can appropriately identify the cause of the anomaly in the mobility entity when an anomaly is detected in only the location log among the operation log, the control log, and the location log the examiner interprets anomalies determined from location information as an example of an abnormality in a specific place) and suspend an operation of the remote operation service in the specific place (see at least Hirano P0158: when the attack origin is the communication path, with the anomaly countermeasure rules shown in FIG. 11, the attack is suppressed by stopping a remote control function of vehicle control apparatus 30 installed in vehicle 40, P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin, and make a notification for performing a warning to a periphery of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the third attack origin and P0224: Aspects realized by combining the constituent elements and functions described in the foregoing embodiment and variations as desired are also included in the scope of the present disclosure)
Hirano teaches that remote operation can be suspended when an anomaly is detected in any one or combination of the operation, control, and location logs (see at least P0039) and selection of an effective countermeasure can be selected based on the type of attack (see at least P0041). Hirano explicitly describes the response to specific location data anomalies identified as a third attack origin; their system makes a notification for performing a warning to a periphery of the control apparatus (see at least P0040). Hirano further describes a misalignment in the control and execution which may include sensor-detected actions (see at least P0131 and P0110 describing actions A, B, and C). It would be an obvious combination to use the teachings of Hirano, who also specifies that the functions described in the specification may be combined and varied (see at least P0224) to suspend remote operation (the exemplary response to communication and control anomalies and attacks) in response to location anomalies or other sensor-detected anomalies such as door opening states and presence detection (see also at least P0110). Therefore, this element of remote operation suspension in a specific location responsive to sensor-detected information is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatorily in view of the teachings of Hirano.
Regarding Claim 7, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 6 and when a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality of at least one of the output device, the remote operation member, and the sensor-detected information related to a specific remote operator terminal is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Hirano Fig. 15 S1502: Anomaly in at least one of operation log, control log, or location log the examiner interprets at least one anomaly as an example of a threshold of one and the operation log as an example of the remote operation member system and the location log as an example of sensor-detected information (see also at least P0009 and P0117)), the management device determines that there is an abnormality in the specific remote operator terminal (see at least Hirano Fig. 10 showing anomaly type number 2 corresponding to an operator attack) and excludes the specific remote operator terminal from the operation of the remote operation service (see at least Hirano P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 6 and when a number of the abnormality report information indicating the abnormality of at least one of the sensor-detected information and the moving body state related to a specific moving body is equal to or greater than a threshold (see at least Hirano Fig. 15 S1502: Anomaly in at least one of operation log, control log, or location log the examiner interprets at least one anomaly as an example of a threshold of one and the location log as an example of sensor-detected information (see also at least P0117)), the management device determines that there is an abnormality in the specific moving body (see at least Hirano P0112: By obtaining and referring to the control log, anomaly detector 104 can detect action C being executed despite vehicle 40 not having operation permissions for action C as an anomaly, for example. In this case, information pertaining to operations for which vehicle 40 does not have permissions is stored in advance in anomaly monitoring apparatus 10 the examiner interprets action C executed on a particular vehicle 40 despite lacking permissions as an example of an abnormality in the specific moving body) and excludes the specific moving body from the operation of the remote operation service (see at least Hirano P0040: the anomaly notifier may stop a remote control function of the control apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the first attack origin, revoke access permission of the operator to the operation apparatus when the attack origin is determined to be the second attack origin the examiner interprets stopping remote control and revoking access as examples of excluding the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 10, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the abnormality report information indicates at least one of: the abnormality of the output device input by the remote operator and the abnormality of the remote operation member input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: the first attack origin may include a malicious operation command being inserted into a communication path between the operation apparatus and the control apparatus; the second attack origin may include an operator, who uses the operation apparatus, transmitting a malicious operation command… Through this, the anomaly monitoring apparatus can select and execute effective countermeasures according to the attack origin that is determined).
Regarding Claim 11, Hirano teaches the limitations of claim 6 and the abnormality report information indicates at least one of: the abnormality of the output device input by the remote operator and the abnormality of the remote operation member input by the remote operator (see at least Hirano P0040: the first attack origin may include a malicious operation command being inserted into a communication path between the operation apparatus and the control apparatus; the second attack origin may include an operator, who uses the operation apparatus, transmitting a malicious operation command… Through this, the anomaly monitoring apparatus can select and execute effective countermeasures according to the attack origin that is determined).
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230261927 A1 by Suehiro describes a remote operation method with abnormality detection in the communication connections of the system.
US 2023/0251649 A1 also by Suehiro teaches a remote vehicle operator system with sensor communication and presentation to the operator and transfer of control (see at least P0063 and P0064)
US 2023/0267782 A1 by Ucar teaches a driving anomaly detection system aligning anomaly detection with location of the anomaly for human-driven vehicles.
US 11,119,477 B1 by Konrardy teaches a remote operation system in which certain road conditions may be avoided or excluded from a valid route based on calculated risk
WO 2018025802 A1 by Komeno teaches an abnormality detection and notification unit with an incremented memory counting the number of times an abnormal state has occurred in the past (see at least Pg. 8, Para 2).
Information
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 ROSE RIDDER whose telephone number is (703)756-1675. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Kito Robinson can be reached on (571)270-3921. 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.
ROSE . RIDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664