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.
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 19-20 and 22 has been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.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 Final Office action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 3/30/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 3/30/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, 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 FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Nagura et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0242447) in view Korte et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/03226611).
With respect to Claim 1: While Nagura discloses “A remote assistance system comprising” [Nagura, ¶ 0060-0063];
“a memory” [Nagura,¶ 0039-0047 and 0055];
“and one or more processors coupled to the memory” [Nagura,¶ 0039-0047 and 0055];
“the one or more processors being configured to” [Nagura,¶ 0039-0047 and 0055];
“determine a delay in receiving data from an autonomous vehicle at a first period of time” [Nagura, ¶ 0060-0063];
“wherein at least a portion of the data is captured by a sensor on the autonomous vehicle while navigating in a scene” [Nagura, ¶ 0033 and 0060-0063];
“determining the delay in receiving the data comprises receiving a fist set of data” [Nagura, ¶ 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 first set of data is expected to include sensor data from at least one sensor” [Nagura, ¶ 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)];
“determining that the sensor data from the at least one sensor is omitted from the first set of data” [Nagura, ¶ 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” [Nagura, ¶ 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” [Nagura, ¶ 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” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“determine a dependence of the task on the sensor data from the at least one sensor at the first period of time” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“the dependence being determined based on one or more parameters” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
“and based on the dependence of the task on the sensor data from the at least one sensor data and the delay in the receiving the data” [Nagura, ¶ 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” [Nagura, ¶ 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” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4];
Nagura does not specifically state the steps of determining the delay, rather data is missing, thus a delay, and adjustment is made.
Korte, which is also a data transmission system that teaches about delays in data sets teaches “determining the delay in receiving the data comprises receiving a fist set of data” [Korte, ¶ 0053 and 0137-0138 (Delay factor Value equal to maximum deviation of media data arrival time from expected arrival time during the collection interval)];
“wherein the first set of data is expected to include data” [Korte, ¶ 0053 and 0137-0138 (Delay factor Value equal to maximum deviation of media data arrival time from expected arrival time during the collection interval)];
“determining a difference between an expected time of receipt of the first set of data and an actual time of receipt of the first set of data” [Korte, ¶ 0053 and 0137-0138 (Delay factor Value equal to maximum deviation of media data arrival time from expected arrival time during the collection interval)];
“wherein the actual time of receipt of the first set of data is subsequent to the expected time of receipt of the first set of data” [Korte, ¶ 0053 and 0137-0138 (Delay factor Value equal to maximum deviation of media data arrival time from expected arrival time during the collection interval)];
“and wherein the difference is the delay” [Korte, ¶ 0053 and 0137-0138 (Delay factor Value equal to maximum deviation of media data arrival time from expected arrival time during the collection interval)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Korte into the invention of Nagura to not only include gathering data sets and measuring delays in the data sets and adjusting remote control based on the delays as Nagura discloses but to also measure the delays in the transmitted data sets by expected and actual arrival time and calculating the delay value as taught by Korte with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Korte into Nagura to create a more robust system that can account for delays in transmission and adjust remote control of a vehicle accordingly and further add valuation to the delays being measure for a more in depth data stream control system. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as measuring delays in data streams and acting in accordance with the delays and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Nagura 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” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 3: Nagura 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” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 4: Nagura 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” [Nagura, ¶ 0026, 0033 and 0060-0069 with Figures 3-4].
With respect to Claim 21: Nagura, 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” [Nagura, ¶ 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” [Nagura, ¶ 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
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
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
Prosecution Insights