DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. This office action is in response to application number 18/424,308 filed on 01/26/2024, in
which the amendments and arguments filed on 04/23/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 has been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 has been received
and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in amendment (See Pages 6-8, filed 04/23/2026) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Pfadler nor von der Ohe teaches the critical condition comprises a permissible latency determined for the preferred maneuver beyond which actuator commands for the preferred maneuver cannot be executed within predefined performance limits for proper execution of the preferred maneuver”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language “the critical condition comprises a permissible latency determined for the preferred maneuver beyond which actuator commands for the preferred maneuver cannot be executed within predefined performance limits for proper execution of the preferred maneuver”, defined in applicant’s specification Paragraph 0074 and 0083, states in paragraph 0074 “The system can dynamically update the set of feasible maneuvers up to the time horizon. If network quality of service or performance indicators change during the time interval to make any maneuvers infeasible, the system may adapt accordingly. In some embodiments, the desired speed and curvature can be decreased for the teleoperated driving task until the maneuvers are feasible.” and states in paragraph 0083 “At block 508, the system can determine that the preferred maneuver satisfies a critical condition based on the latency between the preferred maneuver and the teleoperated vehicle. As described above, the critical condition can refer to a parameter that must be met and can be affected by latency considerations. The system can make sure the selected maneuver and the evaluated latency satisfies the critical condition before proceeding with the remote operating task. In some embodiments, the maneuver must satisfy both the predefined preference parameter and the critical condition.”. Under the broadest interpretation, the examiner is interpreting this as a condition that determines for the preferred maneuver, whether the maneuver is feasible based on the latency of the command for the maneuver.
Under this interpretation, prior art Pfadler teaches in Paragraph 0077 “As described above for FIG. 3, the control center 2 selects in the sixth operation at 106 at least one command for which the validity information exceeds the predetermined threshold, exemplarily chosen as 5 s. The command for the exemplary maneuver is thus still selected in this further exemplary case and then send to the automated transportation vehicle 1 with the second message M2.”. Pfadler also teaches in Paragraph 0078 “After receiving the second message M2, the automated transportation vehicle 1 concludes from the validity informations received that the latencies L1, L2 have been included in the determination. Therefore, the automated transportation vehicle 1 directly executes the further operation at 118, in which the time of feasibility of each command is determined as the time contained in the related validity information. The time of feasibility of the exemplary maneuver corresponds in this case to 6 s. The automated transportation vehicle 1 then selects the one command with the largest time of feasibility from the one or more commands that were sent by the control center 2. In this further exemplary case, the command for the exemplary maneuver is selected.”. Finally, Pfadler also teaches in Paragraph 0079 “The automated transportation vehicle 1 is configured for discarding any command with the time of feasibility being below a predetermined threshold, which may be the same or a different predetermined threshold as used by the control center 2. In this exemplary case, the predetermined threshold was chosen as 3 s. Since the time of feasibility of the selected command exceeds this predetermined threshold (6 s>3 s), the method follows the path marked y in FIG. 3 and the ninth operation at 109 is executed by the automated transportation vehicle 1. The ninth operation at 109 consists of performing the selected command.”.
In other words, the prior art discloses an exemplary maneuver is selected from other maneuvers based on the time of feasibility being greater than a threshold and then the largest time of feasibility for the exemplary maneuver is determined and selected then the selected command is performed. The time of feasibility is based on a difference of the time window of the maneuver of the command and a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency. Thus, an exemplary maneuver is only picked based on partly the latency of the command which is a control signal that causes the automated transportation to perform a maneuver, if the time of feasibility is below a threshold the command is discarded. For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully disagrees that claim 9 and 16 are patentable, and therefore is rejected for the reasons similar to claim 1. Thus claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are also rejected upon dependency to the independent claims. For the reasons explained above the entire rejection has been maintained.
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.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler (US 20240109556 A1) in view of (US 20230176568 A1) to von der Ohe et al. (hereinafter von der Ohe).
Regarding claim 1, Pfadler discloses A method comprising: determining a set of
maneuvers associated with a teleoperated vehicle; (Pfadler Paragraph 0011: “In the case of
tele-operated driving, ToD, V2X allows a control center, CC, to remotely support an
automated transportation vehicle.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0018: “Additionally, the request
message contains suggestions for maneuvers that could be performed in the traffic scenario
by the automated transportation vehicle. The suggestions are optionally determined by the
automated transportation vehicle.”) determining latencies associated with executing each
maneuver in the set of maneuvers at the teleoperated vehicle; (Pfadler Paragraph 0024: “the
command center will not use commands for complicated or extended maneuvers but will
rather support short command for easy maneuvers or short commands triggering
predefined maneuver routines in the automated transportation vehicle.”) (Pfadler
Paragraph 0030: “In a further disclosed embodiment, the validity information for each
command is determined as a difference of the time window of the maneuver of the
command and a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency.”) selecting a
preferred maneuver from the set of maneuvers based on their respective latencies; (Pfadler
Paragraph 0076: “For the exemplary maneuver, where the transportation vehicle crosses
the railroad crossing at a speed of 10 km/h and needs 12 s to do so, the validity information
is therefore calculated with 20 s minus 12 s minus 1 s minus 1 s as 6 s. Both the
uplink latency L1 and the downlink latency L2 were taken into account while determining
the validity information in this case. The validity information for the exemplary maneuver
thus consists of the determined time span of 6 s and of an indication that both of the
latencies have been included in the determination of the validity information.”) (Pfadler
Paragraph 0077: “As described above for FIG. 3, the control center 2 selects in the sixth operation at 106 at least one command for which the validity information exceeds the
predetermined threshold, exemplarily chosen as 5 s. The command for the exemplary
maneuver is thus still selected in this further exemplary case and then send to the
automated transportation vehicle 1 with the second message M2.”) determining whether the preferred maneuver satisfies a critical condition based on the latency associated with executing the preferred maneuver at the teleoperated vehicle, wherein the critical condition comprises a permissible latency determined for the preferred maneuver beyond which actuator commands for the preferred maneuver cannot be executed within predefined performance limits for proper execution of the preferred maneuver; (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “A maneuver according to this disclosure may be a movement or a series of movements the automated transportation vehicle may perform in the traffic scenario.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0078: “After receiving the second message M2, the automated transportation vehicle 1 concludes from the validity informations received that the latencies L1, L2 have been included in the determination. Therefore, the automated transportation vehicle 1 directly executes the further operation at 118, in which the time of feasibility of each command is determined as the time contained in the related validity information. The time of feasibility of the exemplary maneuver corresponds in this case to 6 s. The automated transportation vehicle 1 then selects the one command with the largest time of feasibility from the one or more commands that were sent by the control center 2. In this further exemplary case, the command for the exemplary maneuver is selected.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0079: “The automated transportation vehicle 1 is configured for discarding any command with the time of feasibility being below a predetermined threshold, which may be the same or a different predetermined threshold as used by the control center 2. In this exemplary case, the predetermined threshold was chosen as 3 s. Since the time of feasibility of the selected command exceeds this predetermined threshold (6 s>3 s), the method follows the path marked y in FIG. 3 and the ninth operation at 109 is executed by the automated transportation vehicle 1. The ninth operation at 109 consists of performing the selected command.”) (Note: The critical condition in Pfadler is “a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency” therefore when the latency and duration of the maneuver is below a threshold the “time of feasibility” for the command for the maneuver is discarded.)
Pfadler does not disclose […] and upon determining that the preferred maneuver satisfies a critical condition, performing the preferred maneuver using the teleoperated vehicle.
However, von der Ohe does teach […] and upon determining that the preferred maneuver satisfies a critical condition, performing the preferred maneuver using the teleoperated vehicle. (von der Ohe Paragraph 0022: “If a disturbance is determined, in particular detected, within said network, a first braking maneuver is started for slowing down said vehicle, e.g. by gentle braking. In particular, said vehicle enters a fault state if the end-to-end latency is above a threshold, preferably a predefined, configurable threshold. For example, said threshold is 250 ms. So, if it takes more than 250 ms to send a video frame from the vehicle to the teleoperator station and receive a command back, this is considered a fault.”) (von der Ohe Paragraph 0079: “In each case the recovery succeeds, the duration of the first braking phase can be different, since in that case this phase ends as soon as the end-to-end latency is below the threshold. For a successful recovery, the first braking phase cannot take longer than the recoverable-fault-window.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler to include […] and upon determining that the preferred maneuver satisfies a critical condition, performing the preferred maneuver using the teleoperated vehicle taught by von der Ohe. This would have been for the benefit provide a method for controlling a teleoperated vehicle, in particular during network disturbances or disruptions. [von der Ohe Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 2, Pfadler discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining latencies is based on an actuation time for the teleoperated vehicle. (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “A command according to this disclosure may be a control signal, which causes the automated transportation vehicle to perform a specific maneuver.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “The validity information relates to a time of feasibility of the at least one command.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0041: “In this exemplary embodiment, the controller is further configured for determining the time of feasibility based on the validity information and the determined latency.”)
Regarding claim 3, Pfadler discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining latencies further comprises determining uplink latencies, downlink latencies, (Pfadler Paragraph 0027: “The control center and the automated transportation vehicle may be configured to determine the channel quality, e.g., a downlink and/or uplink latency, based on the channel quality information.”) and processing time for each of the set of maneuvers. (Pfadler Paragraph 0022: “Optionally, the validity information specifies a time length in which the at least one command has to be executed, in other words, a time length in which the maneuver of the at least one command has to be started.”)
Regarding claim 5, Pfadler discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the critical condition further comprises path, curvature, speed, or vehicle parameters. (Pfadler Paragraph 0076: “For the exemplary maneuver, where the transportation vehicle crosses the railroad crossing at a speed of 10 km/h and needs 12 s to do so, the validity information is therefore calculated with 20 s minus 12 s minus 1 s minus 1 s as 6 s. Both the uplink latency L1 and the downlink latency L2 were taken into account while determining the validity information in this case. The validity information for the exemplary maneuver thus consists of the determined time span of 6 s and of an indication that both of the latencies have been included in the determination of the validity information.”) (Note: in order to determine the time of the validity information vehicle speed is needed)
Regarding claim 6, Pfadler discloses The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the preferred maneuver is based on a predefined preference parameter. (Pfadler Paragraph 0078: “The automated transportation vehicle 1 then selects the one command with the largest time of feasibility from the one or more commands that were sent by the control center 2. In this further exemplary case, the command for the exemplary maneuver is selected.”)
Regarding claim 8, Pfadler discloses The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined preference parameter further comprises fueling or battery charge. (Pfadler Paragraph 0033: “Exemplarily, when the validity information specifies a time of feasibility for a command, the command with the largest time of feasibility is providing the highest safety margin. The safety margin may also be based on fuel economy, low acceleration and/or low risk of damage related to the command, e.g., takes into account further weighing factors next to the validity information.”)
Regarding claim 9, Pfadler discloses A system for remote teleoperation of a vehicle, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors to store instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Pfadler Paragraph 0046: “Terms such as “processing” or “creating” or “transferring” or “executing” or “determining” or “detecting” or “obtaining” or “selecting” or “calculating” or “generating” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the memories or registers or other such information storage.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0058: “Further the disclosed controller 40 is configured to carry out the disclosed methods, as explained in detail below. For this purpose, the controller 40 has an internal memory 41 and a CPU 42, which communicate with one another, for example, via a suitable data bus.”) determine a set of maneuvers associated with a teleoperated vehicle; (Pfadler Paragraph 0011: “In the case of tele-operated driving, ToD, V2X allows a control center, CC, to remotely support an automated transportation vehicle.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0018: “Additionally, the request message contains suggestions for maneuvers that could be performed in the traffic scenario by the automated transportation vehicle. The suggestions are optionally determined by the automated transportation vehicle.”) determine latencies associated with executing each maneuver in the set of maneuvers at the teleoperated vehicle; (Pfadler Paragraph 0024: “the command center will not use commands for complicated or extended maneuvers but will rather support short command for easy maneuvers or short commands triggering predefined maneuver routines in the automated transportation vehicle.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0030: “In a further disclosed embodiment, the validity information for each command is determined as a difference of the time window of the maneuver of the command and a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency.”) select a preferred maneuver from the set of maneuvers based on a predefined preference parameter and their respective latencies; (Pfadler Paragraph 0076: “For the exemplary maneuver, where the transportation vehicle crosses the railroad crossing at a speed of 10 km/h and needs 12 s to do so, the validity information is therefore calculated with 20 s minus 12 s minus 1 s minus 1 s as 6 s. Both the uplink latency L1 and the downlink latency L2 were taken into account while determining the validity information in this case. The validity information for the exemplary maneuver thus consists of the determined time span of 6 s and of an indication that both of the latencies have been included in the determination of the validity information.”) (Note: The exemplary maneuver is based on time as the predefined parameter.) (Pfadler Paragraph 0077: “As described above for FIG. 3, the control center 2 selects in the sixth operation at 106 at least one command for which the validity information exceeds the predetermined threshold, exemplarily chosen as 5 s. The command for the exemplary maneuver is thus still selected in this further exemplary case and then send to the automated transportation vehicle 1 with the second message M2.”) determine that the preferred maneuver does not satisfy a critical condition based on the latency associated with executing the preferred maneuver at the teleoperated vehicle, wherein the critical condition comprises a permissible latency determined for the preferred maneuver beyond which actuator commands for the preferred maneuver cannot be executed within predefined performance limits for proper execution of the preferred maneuver; select a next preferred maneuver from the set of maneuvers based on the predefined preference parameter; (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “A maneuver according to this disclosure may be a movement or a series of movements the automated transportation vehicle may perform in the traffic scenario.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0078: “After receiving the second message M2, the automated transportation vehicle 1 concludes from the validity informations received that the latencies L1, L2 have been included in the determination. Therefore, the automated transportation vehicle 1 directly executes the further operation at 118, in which the time of feasibility of each command is determined as the time contained in the related validity information. The time of feasibility of the exemplary maneuver corresponds in this case to 6 s. The automated transportation vehicle 1 then selects the one command with the largest time of feasibility from the one or more commands that were sent by the control center 2. In this further exemplary case, the command for the exemplary maneuver is selected.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0079: “The automated transportation vehicle 1 is configured for discarding any command with the time of feasibility being below a predetermined threshold, which may be the same or a different predetermined threshold as used by the control center 2. In this exemplary case, the predetermined threshold was chosen as 3 s. Since the time of feasibility of the selected command exceeds this predetermined threshold (6 s>3 s), the method follows the path marked y in FIG. 3 and the ninth operation at 109 is executed by the automated transportation vehicle 1. The ninth operation at 109 consists of performing the selected command.”) (Note: The critical condition in Pfadler is “a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency” therefore when the latency and duration of the maneuver is below a threshold the “time of feasibility” for the command for the maneuver is discarded.)
Pfadler does not disclose […] and upon determining that the next preferred maneuver satisfies the critical condition, perform the preferred maneuver using the teleoperated vehicle.
However, von der Ohe does teach […] and upon determining that the next preferred maneuver satisfies the critical condition, perform the preferred maneuver using the teleoperated vehicle. (von der Ohe Paragraph 0021: “Preferably, said disturbance is determined by a control unit of said vehicle, e.g. by detecting a latency, in particular an end-to-end latency between said vehicle and said teleoperator station.”) (von der Ohe Paragraph 0022: “If a disturbance is determined, in particular detected, within said network, a first braking maneuver is started for slowing down said vehicle, e.g. by gentle braking. In particular, said vehicle enters a fault state if the end-to-end latency is above a threshold, preferably a predefined, configurable threshold. For example, said threshold is 250 ms. So, if it takes more than 250 ms to send a video frame from the vehicle to the teleoperator station and receive a command back, this is considered a fault.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler to include […] and upon determining that the next preferred maneuver satisfies the critical condition, perform the preferred maneuver using the teleoperated vehicle taught by von der Ohe. This would have been for the benefit provide a method for controlling a teleoperated vehicle, in particular during network disturbances or disruptions. [von der Ohe Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 10, Pfadler discloses The system of claim 9, wherein determining latencies is based on an actuation time for the teleoperated vehicle. (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “A command according to this disclosure may be a control signal, which causes the automated transportation vehicle to perform a specific maneuver.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “The validity information relates to a time of feasibility of the at least one command.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0041: “In this exemplary embodiment, the controller is further configured for determining the time of feasibility based on the validity information and the determined latency.”)
Regarding claim 11, Pfadler discloses The system of claim 9, wherein determining latencies further comprises determining uplink latencies, downlink latencies, (Pfadler Paragraph 0027: “The control center and the automated transportation vehicle may be configured to determine the channel quality, e.g., a downlink and/or uplink latency, based on the channel quality information.”) and processing time for each of the set of maneuvers. (Pfadler Paragraph 0022: “Optionally, the validity information specifies a time length in which the at least one command has to be executed, in other words, a time length in which the maneuver of the at least one command has to be started.”)
Regarding claim 13, Pfadler discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the critical condition further comprises path, curvature, speed, or vehicle parameters. (Pfadler Paragraph 0076: “For the exemplary maneuver, where the transportation vehicle crosses the railroad crossing at a speed of 10 km/h and needs 12 s to do so, the validity information is therefore calculated with 20 s minus 12 s minus 1 s minus 1 s as 6 s. Both the uplink latency L1 and the downlink latency L2 were taken into account while determining the validity information in this case. The validity information for the exemplary maneuver thus consists of the determined time span of 6 s and of an indication that both of the latencies have been included in the determination of the validity information.”) (Note: in order to determine the time of the validity information vehicle speed is needed)
Regarding claim 15, Pfadler discloses The system of claim 13, wherein the predefined preference parameter further comprises fueling or battery charge. (Pfadler Paragraph 0033: “Exemplarily, when the validity information specifies a time of feasibility for a command, the command with the largest time of feasibility is providing the highest safety margin. The safety margin may also be based on fuel economy, low acceleration and/or low risk of damage related to the command, e.g., takes into account further weighing factors next to the validity information.”)
Regarding claim 16, Pfadler discloses A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Pfadler Paragraph 0044: “Some portions of the detailed description which follows are presented in terms of data processing procedures, operations or other symbolic representations of operations on data bits that can be performed on computer memory.”) (Note: Memory is a type of non-transitory computer readable media) (Pfadler Paragraph 0058: “Further the disclosed controller 40 is configured to carry out the disclosed methods, as explained in detail below. For this purpose, the controller 40 has an internal memory 41 and a CPU 42, which communicate with one another, for example, via a suitable data bus.”) determine a set of maneuvers associated with a teleoperated vehicle; (Pfadler Paragraph 0011: “In the case of tele-operated driving, ToD, V2X allows a control center, CC, to remotely support an automated transportation vehicle.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0018: “Additionally, the request message contains suggestions for maneuvers that could be performed in the traffic scenario by the automated transportation vehicle. The suggestions are optionally determined by the automated transportation vehicle.”) determine latencies associated with executing each maneuver in the set of maneuvers at the teleoperated vehicle; (Pfadler Paragraph 0024: “the command center will not use commands for complicated or extended maneuvers but will rather support short command for easy maneuvers or short commands triggering predefined maneuver routines in the automated transportation vehicle.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0030: “In a further disclosed embodiment, the validity information for each command is determined as a difference of the time window of the maneuver of the command and a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency.”) select a preferred maneuver from the set of maneuvers based on a predefined preference parameter and their respective latencies; (Pfadler Paragraph 0076: “For the exemplary maneuver, where the transportation vehicle crosses the railroad crossing at a speed of 10 km/h and needs 12 s to do so, the validity information is therefore calculated with 20 s minus 12 s minus 1 s minus 1 s as 6 s. Both the uplink latency L1 and the downlink latency L2 were taken into account while determining the validity information in this case. The validity information for the exemplary maneuver thus consists of the determined time span of 6 s and of an indication that both of the latencies have been included in the determination of the validity information.”) (Note: The exemplary maneuver is based on time as the predefined parameter.) (Pfadler Paragraph 0077: “As described above for FIG. 3, the control center 2 selects in the sixth operation at 106 at least one command for which the validity information exceeds the predetermined threshold, exemplarily chosen as 5 s. The command for the exemplary maneuver is thus still selected in this further exemplary case and then send to the automated transportation vehicle 1 with the second message M2.”) determine that the preferred maneuver does not satisfy a critical condition based on the latency associated with executing the preferred maneuver at the teleoperated vehicle, wherein the critical condition comprises a permissible latency determined for the preferred maneuver beyond which actuator commands for the preferred maneuver cannot be executed within predefined performance limits for proper execution of the preferred maneuver; (Pfadler Paragraph 0019: “A maneuver according to this disclosure may be a movement or a series of movements the automated transportation vehicle may perform in the traffic scenario.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0078: “After receiving the second message M2, the automated transportation vehicle 1 concludes from the validity informations received that the latencies L1, L2 have been included in the determination. Therefore, the automated transportation vehicle 1 directly executes the further operation at 118, in which the time of feasibility of each command is determined as the time contained in the related validity information. The time of feasibility of the exemplary maneuver corresponds in this case to 6 s. The automated transportation vehicle 1 then selects the one command with the largest time of feasibility from the one or more commands that were sent by the control center 2. In this further exemplary case, the command for the exemplary maneuver is selected.”) (Pfadler Paragraph 0079: “The automated transportation vehicle 1 is configured for discarding any command with the time of feasibility being below a predetermined threshold, which may be the same or a different predetermined threshold as used by the control center 2. In this exemplary case, the predetermined threshold was chosen as 3 s. Since the time of feasibility of the selected command exceeds this predetermined threshold (6 s>3 s), the method follows the path marked y in FIG. 3 and the ninth operation at 109 is executed by the automated transportation vehicle 1. The ninth operation at 109 consists of performing the selected command.”) (Note: The critical condition in Pfadler is “a total of the duration of the maneuver and the latency” therefore when the latency and duration of the maneuver is below a threshold the “time of feasibility” for the command for the maneuver is discarded.)
Pfadler does not disclose […] determine that no other maneuvers in the set of maneuvers satisfy the predefined preference parameter; and request assistance from a remote operator to operate the teleoperated vehicle.
However, von der Ohe does teach […] determine that no other maneuvers in the set of maneuvers satisfy the predefined preference parameter; and request assistance from a remote operator to operate the teleoperated vehicle. (von der Ohe Paragraph 0061: “Said teleoperation station 3000 receives data 3100, in particular sensor data of said teleoperated vehicle 1000, e.g. video data and audio data, and sends control data 3200, e.g. steering wheel commands or throttle and braking commands, to said teleoperated vehicle 1000. Within said teleoperator station 3000, an operator, a human being, controls said vehicle, e.g. by direct driving.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler to include […] determine that no other maneuvers in the set of maneuvers satisfy the predefined preference parameter; and request assistance from a remote operator to operate the teleoperated vehicle. taught by von der Ohe. This would have been for the benefit provide a method for controlling a teleoperated vehicle, in particular during network disturbances or disruptions. [von der Ohe Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 17, Pfadler discloses The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein determining latencies further comprises determining uplink latencies, downlink latencies, (Pfadler Paragraph 0027: “The control center and the automated transportation vehicle may be configured to determine the channel quality, e.g., a downlink and/or uplink latency, based on the channel quality information.”) and processing time for each of the set of maneuvers. (Pfadler Paragraph 0022: “Optionally, the validity information specifies a time length in which the at least one command has to be executed, in other words, a time length in which the maneuver of the at least one command has to be started.”)
Regarding claim 19, Pfadler discloses The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the critical condition further comprises path, curvature, speed, or vehicle parameters. (Pfadler Paragraph 0076: “For the exemplary maneuver, where the transportation vehicle crosses the railroad crossing at a speed of 10 km/h and needs 12 s to do so, the validity information is therefore calculated with 20 s minus 12 s minus 1 s minus 1 s as 6 s. Both the uplink latency L1 and the downlink latency L2 were taken into account while determining the validity information in this case. The validity information for the exemplary maneuver thus consists of the determined time span of 6 s and of an indication that both of the latencies have been included in the determination of the validity information.”) (Note: in order to determine the time of the validity information vehicle speed is needed)
Regarding claim 20, Pfadler discloses The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the predefined preference parameter further comprises fueling or battery charge. (Pfadler Paragraph 0033: “Exemplarily, when the validity information specifies a time of feasibility for a command, the command with the largest time of feasibility is providing the highest safety margin. The safety margin may also be based on fuel economy, low acceleration and/or low risk of damage related to the command, e.g., takes into account further weighing factors next to the validity information.”)
7. Claim(s) 4, 7, 12, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler (US 20240109556 A1) in view of von der Ohe (US 20230176568 A1) and further in view of (US 20240036571 A1) to Goldman et al. (hereinafter Goldman).
Regarding claim 4, Pfadler in view of von der Ohe teaches claim 3 accordingly, the rejection, of claim 3 is incorporated above.
Pfadler in view of von der Ohe does not teach The method of claim 3, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time.
However, Goldman does teach The method of claim 3, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time. (Goldman Paragraph 0018: “The remote operator may have a predetermined amount of time to respond to (e.g., accept) the request. If a response is received within the predetermined amount of time, the request is assigned to the remote operator. Alternatively, if the response is not received within the predetermined amount of time, the request may be sent one or more additional remote operators and/or placed back into a queue for reassignment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler in view of von der Ohe to include The method of claim 3, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time taught by Goldman. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system in determining a remote operator(s) to assist the vehicle, for example, if the autonomous vehicle requests assistance to traverse the environment. [Goldman Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 7, Pfadler in view of von der Ohe teaches claim 6 accordingly, the rejection, of claim 6 is incorporated above.
Pfadler in view of von der Ohe does not teach The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined preference parameter is set based on user input.
However, Goldman does teach The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined preference parameter is set based on user input. (Goldman Paragraph 0054: “In some examples, the preference(s) 240 may be added, deleted, modified, or otherwise provided by the remote operators 108”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler in view of von der Ohe to include The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined preference parameter is set based on user input taught by Goldman. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system in determining a remote operator(s) to assist the vehicle, for example, if the autonomous vehicle requests assistance to traverse the environment. [Goldman Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 12, Pfadler in view of von der Ohe teaches claim 11 accordingly, the rejection, of claim 11 is incorporated above.
Pfadler in view of von der Ohe does not teach The system of claim 11, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time.
However, Goldman does teach The system of claim 11, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time. (Goldman Paragraph 0018: “The remote operator may have a predetermined amount of time to respond to (e.g., accept) the request. If a response is received within the predetermined amount of time, the request is assigned to the remote operator. Alternatively, if the response is not received within the predetermined amount of time, the request may be sent one or more additional remote operators and/or placed back into a queue for reassignment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler in view of von der Ohe to include The system of claim 11, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time taught by Goldman. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system in determining a remote operator(s) to assist the vehicle, for example, if the autonomous vehicle requests assistance to traverse the environment. [Goldman Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 14, Pfadler in view of von der Ohe teaches claim 13 accordingly, the rejection, of claim 13 is incorporated above.
Pfadler in view of von der Ohe does not teach The system of claim 13, wherein the predefined preference parameter is set based on user input.
However, Goldman does teach The system of claim 13, wherein the predefined preference parameter is set based on user input. (Goldman Paragraph 0054: “In some examples, the preference(s) 240 may be added, deleted, modified, or otherwise provided by the remote operators 108”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler in view of von der Ohe to include The system of claim 13, wherein the predefined preference parameter is set based on user input taught by Goldman. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system in determining a remote operator(s) to assist the vehicle, for example, if the autonomous vehicle requests assistance to traverse the environment. [Goldman Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 18, Pfadler in view of von der Ohe teaches claim 17 accordingly, the rejection, of claim 17 is incorporated above.
Pfadler in view of von der Ohe does not teach The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time.
However, Goldman does teach The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time. (Goldman Paragraph 0018: “The remote operator may have a predetermined amount of time to respond to (e.g., accept) the request. If a response is received within the predetermined amount of time, the request is assigned to the remote operator. Alternatively, if the response is not received within the predetermined amount of time, the request may be sent one or more additional remote operators and/or placed back into a queue for reassignment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pfadler in view of von der Ohe to include The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing time includes a remote operator reaction time taught by Goldman. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system in determining a remote operator(s) to assist the vehicle, for example, if the autonomous vehicle requests assistance to traverse the environment. [Goldman Paragraph 0008]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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 at 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights