DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/2/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) of record.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-18 and 21 are pending.
Claim 22 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 19-20 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18, and 21 will be examined below.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/2/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/2/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 22 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, since the Office is using the same cited prior art, the Office will address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks “the amendment explicitly includes determining that data is missing and that the missing data is sensor data, the claims are not anticipated by Naguru” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, please see the new 112b rejection below to the amended claims and their support and indefiniteness. Further, as cited below, in response to the amendments, it remains the Office’s stance that the data that is missing, or being delayed, as required by the claims, is sensor data. Naguru, ¶ 0112 states “a communication delay has occurred on an image of an autonomous driving vehicle for a prescribed period (e.g. 1 second) or more” and Figures 3-4 show that sensor data being displayed, then delayed or missing sensor data, causing maneuvers to not be allowed, as the claimed subject matter requires. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “determining the delay in receiving the data further comprises identifying that received data is missing data, wherein the missing data is sensor data, and the dependence of the task on the data includes a dependence of the task on the missing data” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear. First, a delay in “receiving data” is determined. Then the claim requires that the “identifying the “received data” is missing data, yet the data has not been received, so is this step before the data is received or after? For example, is this step a new step after the delayed data is received, like data is 1 cycle late, and further missing data? Or does this step merely mean that the delayed data is considered missing since it is delayed, and further, the data is sensor data? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, that it is indefinite. The Office went into the specification and was unable to find this second step, after the first step of identifying that the data is not only delayed but missing sensor data as it appears that the data is “either missing or delayed” and not one, then the other. Is this new matter which would require a 112a rejection, or just an issue with indefiniteness. The Office is going to interpret this limitation as “when data is delayed, which sensor data is missing or delayed, since delayed data is missing in time”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Naguru et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0242447).
With respect to Claim 1: Nagaru discloses “A remote assistance system comprising” [Naguru, ¶ 0060-0063];
“a memory” [Naguru,¶ 0039-0047 and 0055];
“and one or more processors coupled to the memory” [Naguru,¶ 0039-0047 and 0055];
“the one or more processors being configured to” [Naguru,¶ 0039-0047 and 0055];
“determine a delay in receiving data from an autonomous vehicle at a first period of time” [Naguru, ¶ 0060-0063];
“wherein at least a portion of the data is captured by a sensor on the autonomous vehicle while navigating in a scene” [Naguru, ¶ 0033 and 0060-0063];
“determining the delay in receiving the data further comprises identifying that received data is missing data” [Naguru, ¶ 0060-0069, 0112 with Figures 3-4 (a communication delay has occurred on an image of an autonomous driving vehicle for a prescribed period (e.g. 1 second) or more)];
“wherein the missing data is sensor data” [Naguru, ¶ 0060-0069, 0112 with Figures 3-4 (a communication delay has occurred on an image of an autonomous driving vehicle for a prescribed period (e.g. 1 second) or more)];
“and the dependence of the task on the data includes a dependence of the task on the missing data” [Naguru, ¶ 0060-0069, 0112 with Figures 3-4 (a communication delay has occurred on an image of an autonomous driving vehicle for a prescribed period (e.g. 1 second) or more)];
“identify a task associated with a remote assistance request from the autonomous vehicle at the first period of time” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“wherein the task includes one or more actions for the autonomous vehicle corresponding to one or more input elements on a remote assistance interface” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“wherein a remote assistant operator selecting the one or more input elements authorizes the autonomous vehicle to perform the corresponding action” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“determine a dependence of the task on the data at the first period of time” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“the dependence being determined based on one or more parameters” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“and based on the dependence of the task on the data and the delay in the receiving the data” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“adjust at least one of the one or more input elements of the remote assistance interface and the one or more actions for the autonomous vehicle” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“wherein the adjusting includes altering the input elements such that the remote assistance operator cannot authorize the autonomous vehicle to perform the corresponding action associated with the one or more input elements” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 2: Naguru discloses “The remote assistance system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: display the at least one of adjusted one or more input elements and the adjusted one or more actions for input from a remote assistant on the remote assistance interface” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 3: Naguru discloses “The remote assistance system of claim 1, wherein adjusting the one or more actions includes disabling an input element corresponding to at least one action of the one or more actions” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 4: Naguru discloses “The remote assistance system of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters include a safety parameter that defines an estimated impact of the data on a safety metric of the autonomous vehicle” [Naguru, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 21: Naguru, discloses “The remote assistance system of claim 1, wherein the one or more input elements on the remote assistance interface includes at least one of the keyboard, a mouse, a tablet, and a microphone” [Naguru, ¶ 0042];
“and adjusting at least one of the one or more input elements of the remote assistance interface and the one or more actions associated with the one or more input elements includes at least one of disabling the at least one of a keyboard, a mouse, a tablet, and a microphone and deactivating the at least one of the keyboard, the mouse, the tablet, and the microphone” [Naguru, ¶ 0061-0069].
With respect to Claims 8-11: all limitations have been examined with respect to the remote assistance system in Claims 1-4. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 8-11 can clearly perform on the remote assistance system of Claims 1-4. Therefore Claims 8-11 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 15-18: all limitations have been examined with respect to the remote assistance system in Claims 1-4. The medium taught/disclosed in Claims 15-18 can clearly perform on the remote assistance system of Claims 1-4. Therefore Claims 15-18 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c