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 .
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, 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) 1-12, 14-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200293064 to Wu et al. (“Wu”) in view of US 11938963 to Joubert et al. (“Joubert”).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an operations system comprising:
at least one processor [0151]; and
at least one non-transitory memory having stored thereon processor-executable instructions [0151] that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the remote operations system to:
receive, from an autonomous vehicle, a request for operator assistance ([0134], commands enabling a human driver to operate the vehicle; further SAE level 3 is well known to incorporate operator assistance upon request);
receive, from the autonomous vehicle, data associated with the autonomous vehicle ([0135], controller provides commands responsive to sensor data received),
the data associated with the autonomous vehicle including one or more of an image associated with a first time or occupancy data associated with an environment of the autonomous vehicle associated with the first time (e.g. see [0030], image data may include timestamps; see Fig. 3 and [0044]);
generate, by a machine-learned model and based on the data associated with the autonomous vehicle, a predicted image associated with a second time subsequent to the first time (see Abstract, [0030]; see [0044])
the predicted image depicting a predicted view at the second time ([0030], predicting future locations of an object; [0044]);
display the predicted view via the operations system (e.g. [0136] describing displaying data about driving maneuvers to be made; [0237], [0238], [0249]),
the predicted view being displayed to reduce a latency associated with displaying the data associated with the autonomous vehicle to an operator (e.g. see [0006], [0072], [0188]; improving “run-time efficiency”);
receive an input from the operator; and transmit, based at least in part on the input, guidance to the autonomous vehicle, the guidance configured to be used by the autonomous vehicle as part of controlling the autonomous vehicle (e.g. [0134]).
It does not appear that Wu is concerned with remote operator functions. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Joubert discloses remote teleassist functions (see abstract; e.g. also see col. 14, ln 41-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing redundant operator abilities for the vehicle.
Claims 7 and 14 are similar in scope to claim 1 and thus rejected using similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the remote operations system of claim 1, the remote operations system being further configured to: determine the second time based at least in part on determining latency associated with at least one of receiving the data associated with the autonomous vehicle
Claims 8 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 2 and thus rejected using similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the remote operations system of claim 2, the remote operations system being further configured to: receive additional sensor data including a second image captured at a third time subsequent the first time and within a threshold difference of time from the second time; determine a similarity of the second image to the predicted image; and in response to the similarity being below a threshold, discontinuing display of predicted images via the remote operations system (e.g. see [0092]).
Claims 9 and 16 are similar in scope to claim 3 and thus rejected using similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the remote operations system of claim 1, wherein generating the predicted image based on the image comprises:
generating, by a diffusion model (e.g. see [0091] describing removing noise) and based at least in part on the image, latent variable data, wherein the latent variable data is associated with the second time; and
generating, by a decoder (e.g. see [0045]) and based at least in part on the latent variable data, the predicted image (e.g. see [0045]).
Claims 11 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 4 and is thus rejected using similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the remote operations system of claim 4, wherein generating the predicted image is based on map data and an object trajectory of the occupancy data associated with an object in the environment associated with the autonomous vehicle (e.g. see [0136]).
Claims 10 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 5 and thus rejected using similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the remote operations system of claim 4, wherein the diffusion model is configured to perform a denoising algorithm based at least in part on the image to generate the latent variable data (e.g. see [0039], [0091]).
Claims 12 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 6 and is thus rejected using similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein displaying the predicted image further comprises displaying the predicted image in place of real-time sensor data that is associated with the autonomous vehicle and received from the autonomous vehicle (e.g. see [0030] – [0032]; [0044] describing the recited predicted images).
Regarding claim 22, Wu in view of Joubert discloses the method of claim 7, wherein displaying the predicted image further comprises displaying the predicted image in place of real-time sensor data that is associated with the autonomous vehicle and received from the autonomous vehicle (e.g. see [0030] – [0032]; [0044] describing the recited predicted images).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (i.e. namely Magzimof in view of Tiwari and Ogawa) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights