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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2025 & 11/20/2025 are both in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 10/16/2025. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1-3, 5 – 6, 15, & 19 have been amended, claim 4 has been cancelled, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 10-18, filed on 10/16/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the amendment renders this rejection now moot.
5. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the limitation “and control the vehicle based on the displayed video image, wherein the video images related to the operation of the vehicle include a video image in which the vehicle is captured, and wherein the selecting the video image to be displayed on the display device includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera having a longer time period during which the vehicle is in a visual field.” as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Bernal did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries 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 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 CFR 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 15 – 16, 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20200409368 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”).
8. Regarding claim 1, 19, & 20 Caldwell discloses a remote support system for providing remote support to a vehicle, the remote support system comprising: (see [0031]) A remote vehicle guidance system.
a display device for displaying a video image to a remote operator (see [0063] Fig. 2); A computing device (200) which a graphical user interface (GUI 202) which constitutes as a display device.
at least one processor (see [0128]); Vehicle computing device (804) may include one or more processors.
and at least one memory storing a plurality of instructions executable by the at least one processor, the plurality of instructions being configured to cause the at least one processor to (see [0128]) Includes a memory (818).
control the vehicle based on the displayed video image, ([0063] Fig. 2) A GUI (202) which an operator (204) can control the vehicle by inputting waypoints and orientation guidance based on what the GUI (202) is display.
9. Caldwell further does not explicitly teach acquire video images related to operation of the vehicle from a plurality of monitoring cameras installed on or near an operation route of the vehicle,
Jeong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquire video images related to operation of the vehicle from a plurality of monitoring cameras installed on or near an operation route of the vehicle (see [0044]), Cam1 (310) may monitor the first handover area and transmit the image to the handout server (300). Cam2 (312) may monitor the second handover area and transmit the image to the handout server (300).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell with the teachings of Jeong, to be able to transmit or acquire video images of an operation of a vehicle from multiple monitoring cameras in order to more efficiently monitor a vehicle moving through different areas that one camera wouldn’t normally be able to capture (see [0044]).
10. Caldwell teaches select a video image to be displayed on the display device from among the video images…(see [Col. 17] Row 28 – 30 “The GUI 202 may include one or more windows 216 depicting sensor data from one or more sensors on the vehicle 210.” Fig. 2). It is inherent that the selection of video images to be displayed on the GUI (202) are by default an internal step from among the video images being displayed.
Caldwell does not appear to explicitly recite …acquired by the plurality of monitoring cameras based on information regarding current and future relative relationship between each of the plurality of monitoring cameras and the vehicle, and
However, Jeong explicitly recites acquired by the plurality of monitoring cameras based on information regarding current and future relative relationship between each of the plurality of monitoring cameras and the vehicle, and (see [0037] – [0039], [0046] – [0050]) Has a handover system which deals with multiple sensors (cameras) which monitor a vehicle in specific handover areas as it traverses its specific route. A handover system is when an object such as a vehicle is being tracked by a camera in a specific area and that object carries over into another area that a second camera is monitoring. The camera feed will then transfer over to the second camera where the vehicle is now traversing through the second camera’s handover area due to the first camera being able to no longer track that vehicle. A handover system inherently has to deal with current and future relative relationship with the vehicle and cameras in order to track a vehicle moving through multiple types of different areas.
Caldwell and Jeong are analogous are because Caldwell teaches a display unit that can select video images while Jeong teaches a handover system that contains a plurality of monitoring cameras that are based on current and future relative relationship between the monitoring cameras and the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Caldwell and Jeong, to modify the teachings of Caldwell to include the teachings of Jeong to more accurately display a video image to the remote operator of the vehicle as it is navigating its route for the operator to provide support to the vehicle in the case it is needed.
11. Caldwell further does not explicitly teach display the selected video image on the display device and…wherein the selecting the video image to be displayed on the display device…
However, Kujirai in the same field of endeavor, teaches display the selected video image on the display device and…wherein the selecting the video image to be displayed on the display device… (see [0081]). Generation unit (145) may select, depending on priority, one of the fixed cameras (310) to be displayed on the user terminal (200) which is considered the display device.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell with the teachings of Kujirai, to have a system that can automatically select a video image based on predetermined rules without having to manually select the video images (see [0081]).
12. Caldwell further does not explicitly teach wherein the video images related to the operation of the vehicle include a video image in which the vehicle is captured, and
…includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera having a longer time period during which the vehicle is in a visual field.
However, Bernal in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the video images related to the operation of the vehicle include a video image in which the vehicle is captured, and ([0025] – [0026] Fig. 5a – 5b) Both figures 5a and 5b show an operation of a vehicle as it passes by in the video image. The vehicle is being captured by the camera.
…includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera having a longer time period during which the vehicle is in a visual field ([0025] – [0026] Fig. 6a – 6b). Bernal teaches on local timing modules (60, 62, 64) to measure the time an object (a vehicle) is spent in a region of interest (ROI) (88) such as a drive-thru [Fig. 3]. When an object has been in the feed of a video camera’s ROI for a certain amount of time, that camera will be selected to track that vehicle with a colored rectangle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell with the teachings of Bernal, to measure a time a vehicle has been in a ROI and track that vehicle continuously.
12. Regarding claim 8, Caldwell teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to change a display mode of displaying the selected video image on the display device…(see [Col. 24] Row 25 – 28, Row 34 – 52) Vehicle can operate under different modes which may affect how the GUI (202) displays video images.
Caldwell does not appear to explicitly recite …according to the current and future relative relationship between the monitoring camera that has captured the selected video image and the vehicle.
However, Jeong explicitly recites …according to the current and future relative relationship between the monitoring camera that has captured the selected video image and the vehicle (see [0037] – [0039], [0046] – [0050]) Has a handover system which deals with multiple sensors (cameras) which monitor a vehicle in specific handover areas as it traverses its specific route. A handover system is when an object such as a vehicle is being tracked by a camera in a specific area and that object carries over into another area that a second camera is monitoring. The camera feed will then transfer over to the second camera where the vehicle is now traversing through the second camera’s handover area due to the first camera being able to no longer track that vehicle. A handover system inherently has to deal with current and future relative relationship with the vehicle and cameras in order to track a vehicle moving through multiple types of different areas.
Caldwell and Jeong are analogous are because Caldwell teaches a display unit that can select video images while Jeong teaches a handover system that contains a plurality of monitoring cameras that are based on current and future relative relationship between the monitoring cameras and the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Caldwell and Jeong, to modify the teachings of Caldwell to include the teachings of Jeong to be able to change the display mode of the video image to have more options on how to show the selected video image.
13. Regarding claim 10, Caldwell does not appear to explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein the video image displayed on the display device is a video image in which the vehicle is not shown.
However, Jeong in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein the video image displayed on the display device is a video image in which the vehicle is not shown (see Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows how the handover system operates and handover area 110 displays an image where the vehicle isn’t shown because it has already moved over to handover area 112 where it is now being monitored.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell with the teachings of Jeong to show a video image where a vehicle is not displayed to have the camera monitoring that same area regardless if the vehicle is shown or not in case any other event occurs (see Fig. 2).
14. Regarding claim 15, Caldwell does not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein the selecting the video images to be displayed on the display device includes, when the vehicle is turning right or left at an intersection, selecting video images in which a state of a place where the vehicle enters the intersection by turning right or left is most clearly shown.
However, Jeong in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein the selecting the video images to be displayed on the display device includes, when the vehicle is turning right or left at an intersection, selecting video images in which a state of a place where the vehicle enters the intersection by turning right or left is most clearly shown (see [0041] – [0042]). Handover system can be applied to a curve in a road where a vehicle may either have to turn right or left. It is inherent that if a vehicle is in handover area 1 where it is at turning intersection then camera 1 will be monitoring the vehicle in handover area 1. Once the vehicle turns either right or left into handover area 2, then the feed will switch to camera 2 that is monitoring handover area 2 to get a clearer video of the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell with the teachings of Jeong, to switch to a different monitoring camera of a vehicle as it turns left or right at an intersection get a more clearer video of a vehicle so that the remote operator can get a better video of what is happening with the vehicle as it comes out of a different area that the previous camera is monitoring (see [0041] – [0042]).
15. Regarding claim 16, Caldwell doesn’t explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 15, wherein the selecting the video image in which the state of the place where the vehicle enters the intersection by turning right or left is most clearly shown includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera which is installed on a right side of the intersection and captures a video image in a left direction, or selecting a video image of a monitoring camera which is installed on a left side of the intersection and captures a video image in a right direction.
However, Jeong in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 15, wherein the selecting the video image in which the state of the place where the vehicle enters the intersection by turning right or left is most clearly shown includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera which is installed on a right side of the intersection and captures a video image in a left direction, or selecting a video image of a monitoring camera which is installed on a left side of the intersection and captures a video image in a right direction (see [0041] – [0042]). Handover system can be applied to a curve in a road where a vehicle may either have to turn right or left. It is inherent that if a vehicle is in handover area 1 where it is at turning intersection then camera 1 will be monitoring the vehicle in handover area 1. Once the vehicle turns either right or left into handover area 2, then the feed will switch to camera 2 that is monitoring handover area 2 to get a clearer video of the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell with the teachings of Jeong, to switch to a different monitoring camera of a vehicle as it turns left or right at an intersection get a more clearer video of a vehicle so that the remote operator can get a better video of what is happening with the vehicle as it comes out of a different area that the previous camera is monitoring (see [0041] – [0042]).
16. Regarding claim 19, Caldwell discloses a remote support method for providing remote support to a vehicle, the remote support method comprising: (see [Col. 7] Row 11 - 23) A remote vehicle guidance system.
17. Regarding claim 20, Caldwell discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a remote support program for providing remote support to a vehicle, the remote support program causing a computer to execute: (see [Col. 7] Row 11 - 23) A remote vehicle guidance system.
18. Claim(s) 2 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 11768493B2 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220358836A1 (hereinafter, “Baek”).
19. Regarding claim 2, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein
the video images related to the operation of the vehicle include a video image showing an area through which the vehicle is scheduled to pass, and
the selecting the video image to be displayed on the display device…
Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not appear to explicitly recite …includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera whose visual field includes an area through which the vehicle is scheduled to pass within a predetermined time.
However, Baek explicitly recites …includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera whose visual field includes an area through which the vehicle is scheduled to pass within a predetermined time (see [0128]) because Baek’s disclosure recites the horizon being the predetermined distance based on a predetermined traveling route. The horizon may refer to a point where the vehicle may arrive at based on a predetermined time from where the position of vehicle (10) is located along the predetermined travel route.
Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal and Baek are analogous art because Caldwell teaches a display unit that can select video images while Jeong teaches a handover system that contains a plurality of monitoring cameras that are based on current and future relative relationship between the monitoring cameras and the vehicle. Kujirai can select a video image and display it on a display device while Baek teaches a method on monitoring a vehicle scheduled to pass am area by calculating a predetermined time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal, and Baek to modify the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal to include the teachings of Baek to be able to timelier begin the monitoring of a vehicle scheduled to pass a specific area to get full surveillance of the vehicle ahead of time.
20. Regarding claim 3, Caldwell as modified by Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein
the video images related to the operation of the vehicle include a video image showing an area through which the vehicle is scheduled to pass, and
the selecting the video images to be displayed on the display device includes
Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not appear to explicitly recite …selecting a video image of a monitoring camera whose visual field includes a predetermined area on the travel route when the vehicle approaches a point at a predetermined distance from the predetermined area.
However, Baek explicitly recites …selecting a video image of a monitoring camera whose visual field includes a predetermined area on the travel route when the vehicle approaches a point at a predetermined distance from the predetermined area (see [0128], [0385]) because Baek’s disclosure recites the horizon being predetermined distance at which vehicle (10) is located along a predetermined travel route. The horizon can be calculated as the vehicle gets closer to the predetermined area (electric horizon). The predetermined area can be any area that is known such as road surroundings, residential areas, public places, dangerous areas, etc.
Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal and Baek are analogous art because Caldwell teaches a display unit that can select video images while Jeong teaches a handover system that contains a plurality of monitoring cameras that are based on current and future relative relationship between the monitoring cameras and the vehicle while Baek teaches a method of calculating a predetermined area on the travel route when the vehicle approaches a predetermined distance from the predetermined area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal, and Baek, to modify the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong to include the teachings of Baek to be able to timelier select the camera ahead of time to begin showing the feed of the predetermined area once the vehicle passes a predetermined distance to that predetermined area to get full coverage of that vehicle as it traverse that predetermined area.
21. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20200409368 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240153273A1 (hereinafter, “Goyal”).
22. Regarding claim 5, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not appear to explicitly recite the remote support system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to
increase priority of the video image of the monitoring camera having a longer time period during which the vehicle is in the visual field as a speed of the vehicle increases.
However, Goyal in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to
increase priority of the video image of the monitoring camera having a longer time period during which the vehicle is in the visual field as a speed of the vehicle increases (see [0016] – [0017], [0020] Fig. 2.). When a change is occurring, that camera monitoring that change begins to monitor that change for a duration of time which constitutes as increased priority due to the camera now monitoring where that change happened. The duration of time can be adjusted based on a user or an AI. A vehicle can be driving at a good relative speed on the road, but when the vehicles speed begins to increase, that could be a change the camera system detects and monitors until that vehicle is no longer in view.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal with Goyal to capture a vehicle as it increases in speed to monitor footage of such vehicle in case any sort of accident or event occurs due to the vehicle speed increasing (see [0016] – [0017], [0020] Fig. 2.).
23. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 11768493B2 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20180189574A1 (hereinafter, “Brueckner”).
24. Regarding claim 6, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein
the video images related to the operation of the vehicle include a video image in which the vehicle is captured, and
the selecting the video image to be displayed on the display device…
Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not appear to explicitly recite …includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera in which a ratio of a visual field occupied by the vehicle is equal to or greater than a first predetermined ratio and less than a second predetermined ratio.
However, Brueckner explicitly recites …includes selecting a video image of a monitoring camera in which a ratio of a visual field occupied by the vehicle is equal to or greater than a first predetermined ratio and less than a second predetermined ratio (see [0048] – [0049], [0055] – [0057] Fig. 4). Images contain predetermined areas that contain targets field of views depending on field of interest. Percentages of an image are also used depending on how much a region of interest takes up in the full image. If a vehicle was incorporated, based on how much of the image that vehicle is occupying then we can use that as a region of interest and check to see how much of the image that vehicle is taking up in the target field of view based on percentage or ratio and have a second predetermined ratio of the visual field and determine if it is less than the second predetermined ratio. If it is less than the second predetermined ratio, we then select that monitoring camera to be displayed.
Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal, and Baek are analogous art because Caldwell teaches a display unit that can select video images while Jeong teaches a handover system that contains a plurality of monitoring cameras that are based on current and future relative relationship between the monitoring cameras and the vehicle while Brueckner teaches a way of using image ratios to determine how much of a region of interest takes up in a target field of view within an image which can be used in selecting a monitoring camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal, and Brueckner, to modify the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal to include the teachings of Brueckner to have a vehicle within a predetermined visual field be selected to be displayed by a monitoring camera to monitor the vehicle to see what is currently occurring with the vehicle.
25. Claim(s) 7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 11768493B2 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”), and further in view of WO Pub. No. 2018091110A1 (hereinafter, “Nadenau”).
26. Regarding claim 7, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not appear to explicitly recite the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein the display device includes a plurality of screens,
and the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to
associate each of the plurality of monitoring cameras with any of the plurality of screens in accordance with a predetermined distribution rule, and
select, for each of the plurality of screens, a video image to be displayed from among the video images acquired by the associated monitoring cameras.
Nadenau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein the display device includes a plurality of screens (see [0026]),
and the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to
associate each of the plurality of monitoring cameras with any of the plurality of screens in accordance with a predetermined distribution rule (see [0026]), and
select, for each of the plurality of screens, a video image to be displayed from among the video images acquired by the associated monitoring cameras (see [0026]). Uses a display device which has a plurality of screens. Each screen window has a different type of filtering based on assigned attributes which can be considered the predetermined distribution rule. Once each window screen has been assigned an attribute, it is inherent that a video image corresponding to each assigned attribute will be selected.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal with Nadenau to have a plurality of window screens on the display device be displayed to more easily show all the live feeds from the plurality of monitoring cameras for the remote user (see Fig. 24).
27. Regarding claim 9, Nadenau teaches the remote support system according to claim 8, wherein
the display device includes a plurality of screens,
the selected video image includes a plurality of selected video images, and…
Nadenau does not appear to explicitly recite …the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to
change arrangement of the plurality of selected video images on the plurality of screens according to the current and future relative relationship between the monitoring camera corresponding to each of the plurality of selected images and the vehicle.
However, Jeong explicitly recites …the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to
change arrangement of the plurality of selected video images on the plurality of screens according to the current and future relative relationship between the monitoring camera corresponding to each of the plurality of selected images and the vehicle (see [0037] – [0039], [0046] – [0050]) Has a handover system which deals with multiple sensors (cameras) which monitor a vehicle in specific handover areas as it traverses its specific route. A handover system is when an object such as a vehicle is being tracked by a camera in a specific area and that object carries over into another area that a second camera is monitoring. The camera feed will then transfer over to the second camera where the vehicle is now traversing through the second camera’s handover area due to the first camera being able to no longer track that vehicle. A handover system inherently has to deal with current and future relative relationship with the vehicle and cameras in order to track a vehicle moving through multiple types of different areas.
Nadenau and Jeong are analogous art because Nadenau has a display device that contains a plurality of screens while Jeong has a camera monitoring system that has a handover system that could change the arrangement of cameras according to where the vehicle is navigating through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Nadenau and Caldwell/Jeong to modify the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal to include the teachings of Caldwell/Jeong to be able to change the arrangement of cameras monitoring the vehicle on the display device to only show the feed of where the vehicle is currently navigating through.
28. Claim(s) 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 11768493B2 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230017325A1 (hereinafter, “Nilsson”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230064993A1 (hereinafter, “Kim”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230030600A1 (hereinafter, “Shi”).
29. Regarding claim 11, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform processing for removing the vehicle or processing for hiding the vehicle on a video image in which the vehicle is shown among the selected video images.
However, Nilsson in the same field of endeavor teaches the remote support system according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform processing for removing the vehicle or processing for hiding the vehicle on a video image in which the vehicle is shown among the selected video images (see [0050], [0064] Fig. 3). Masking/hiding of a vehicle in a video stream.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal with the teachings of Nilsson, to be able to hide a vehicle from a video image due to prevent confusion due to the one vehicle showing up in two monitoring cameras at the same time (see [0050], [0064] Fig. 3).
30. Regarding claim 12, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to display, on the display device, a video image in which the vehicle is not shown during a period from when the vehicle approaches an intersection to when the vehicle passes through the intersection.
However, Nilsson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to display, on the display device, a video image in which the vehicle is not shown during a period from when the vehicle approaches an intersection to when the vehicle passes through the intersection (see [0050], [0064]). It is inherent that if a video stream was positioned at an intersection where a vehicle was passing through that it could be masked by this system and not shown as it approaches to when it passes through the intersection as long as it is within view of the cameras.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal with the teachings of Nilsson, to have the capabilities to mask a vehicle as it approaches and passes through an intersection to not confuse the remote operator to pay more attention to the video images that don’t contain the vehicle.
31. Regarding claim 13, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal, and Nilsson do not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 12, wherein
the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to display the video image in which the vehicle is not shown on the display device when a speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a predetermined speed, and display the video image in which the vehicle is shown on the display device when the speed of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined speed. However, Kim in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 12, wherein
the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to display the video image in which the vehicle is not shown on the display device when a speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a predetermined speed, and display the video image in which the vehicle is shown on the display device when the speed of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined speed (see [0073]). When the vehicle (10) exceeds the predetermined speed, controller (140) will tell the display module (150) to not display the AR image. It is inherent that as long as the speed of the vehicle maintains a speed below the predetermined speed, the display module (150) will continue to display the AR image. The feature that tells the controller (140) to display the AR image based on the vehicle speed and whether it is below or above the predetermined speed is what is pertinent. Incorporating this feature with the display device that Caldwell teaches along with the camera monitoring system that Jeong teaches along with the display that has a plurality of screens that Nilsson teaches would create a system that can make a determination on whether the video image should be displayed or not based on a predetermined speed.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong as modified by Kujirai, Bernal, and Nilsson with the teachings of Kim, to prevent confusion of the remote operator from occurring due to the speed of the vehicle as it passes through an intersection (see [0073]).
32. Regarding claim 14, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, Bernal, Nilsson, and Kim do not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to when displaying the video image in which the vehicle is shown on the display device, display an arrow indicating a traveling direction of the vehicle at the intersection on the display device in a superimposed manner.
However, Shi in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to when displaying the video image in which the vehicle is shown on the display device, display an arrow indicating a traveling direction of the vehicle at the intersection on the display device in a superimposed manner (see [0071], [0073] Fig, 7). Superimposes a navigation guide image along with a real-time foreground image to create directional travel ques for a vehicle such as at least one of an arrow.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong as modified by Kujirai, Bernal, Nilsson, and Kim with the teachings of Shi to further help the remote operator understand the direction of which the vehicle is traveling easier by implementing superimposed arrows onto the video images of the vehicle path (see [0071], [0073] Fig, 7).
33. Claim(s) 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 11768493B2 (hereinafter, “Caldwell”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240020855A1 (hereinafter, “Jeong”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20240087369A1 (hereinafter, “Kujirai”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140063263A1 (hereinafter, “Bernal”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20120033087A1 (hereinafter, “Takeda”).
34. Regarding claim 17, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to display an onboard camera video image captured by an onboard camera mounted on the vehicle on the display device, and
superimpose the selected video image on the onboard camera video image.
However, Takeda in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to display an onboard camera video image captured by an onboard camera mounted on the vehicle on the display device, and
superimpose the selected video image on the onboard camera video image (see [0064]). Vehicle has an onboard camera (20) which can capture images. Vehicle also has a drawing unit (41) which superimposes a predetermined drawing onto the captured image. Incorporating the superimposing feature of Takeda’s onboard camera image with Jeong’s monitoring camera system video images would create an equivalent.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal with the teachings of Takeda to have an onboard camera that superimposes the onboard camera image with the image of the selected monitoring cameras to have augmented reality directional ques to help the remote operator know the predicted travel path of the vehicle (see [0064]).
35. Regarding claim 18, Caldwell as modified by Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal does not explicitly teach the remote support system according to claim 17, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to superimpose the selected video image on the onboard camera video image during a period from when the vehicle approaches an intersection to when the vehicle passes through the intersection.
However, Takeda in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote support system according to claim 17, wherein the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the at least one processor to superimpose the selected video image on the onboard camera video image during a period from when the vehicle approaches an intersection to when the vehicle passes through the intersection (see [0064]).
Vehicle has an onboard camera (20) which can capture images. Vehicle also has a drawing unit (41) which superimposes a predetermined drawing onto the captured image. Incorporating the superimposing feature of Takeda’s onboard camera image with Jeong’s monitoring camera system video images would create an equivalent. Jeong also recites that it’s monitoring system can take place on a curved road as such where an intersection happens (see Jeong [0041]). Implement the superimposing feature of Takeda’s onboard camera with Jeong’s monitoring system that can monitor an intersection and that constitutes superimposing a selected video image with an onboard camera when a vehicle approaches and passes through an intersection.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caldwell/Jeong, Kujirai, and Bernal with the teachings of Takeda, to superimpose a video image selected with the onboard camera image during the period of when a vehicle approaches and passes through an intersection to implement directional ques to help the remote operator know the predicted travel path of the vehicle (see [0064]).
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 DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights