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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 09/08/2023 for Application No. 18/464,010
Claims 1 – 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 line 3 states the term “incudes” which examiner believes is misspelled and should state “includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claims should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the first measure being configured to” in claim 3 and 4
“the second measure being configured to” in claim 3 and 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a remote-control apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 23 is directed to a program product for a processor (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 23 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for claims 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22 and 23. Claim 1 recites:
A remote-control apparatus comprising:
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to:
receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and a surrounding condition around the vehicle, the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information;
present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator;
variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, [mental process/step]
the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; and
send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the expiration term of the assistance information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person able to determine an expiration term based on the received vehicle information. It is merely a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Claim 2 also claims a determiner which is configured to perform the same mental process as claim 1, therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, claims state additional limitations that are beyond the above-noted abstract idea as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A remote-control apparatus comprising:
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and a surrounding condition around the vehicle, the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; [insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; [insignificant activity (displaying acquired information)]
variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, [mental process/step]
the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; and [insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the expiration term of the assistance information. [insignificant post-solution activity (sending results of the mental process)]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive, from a vehicle,…,” “present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator,…” and “send, to the vehicle, the assistance information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (remote-control apparatus) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the vehicle are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The presenting results step to the remote operator by a terminal apparatus is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the acquired vehicle data), and amounts to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of “a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Lastly, the “send…” step to the vehicle is merely sending the information determined by the mental process, thus a form of insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 23 includes the additional limitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and a set of computer program instructions embedded in the computer-readable medium, the instructions causing the processor” which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The rest of the additional elements are the same as in claim 1, and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to perform used to determine an expiration term of the assistance information amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information …” “present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information…” and “send, to the vehicle, the assistance information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 22 of independent claim 1 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims state the additional elements, such as the processor configured to read a program stored on a medium for performing the insignificant extra solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. Therefore, dependent claims 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Further 35 USC 101 analysis of independent claim 2 and its dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 7, 10, 11 and 13 are stated below:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a remote-control apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for claims 4, 6, 8, 7, 10, 11 and 13. Claim 2 recites:
A remote-control apparatus comprising:
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to:
receive, from a vehicle, (i) vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and a surrounding condition around the vehicle, and (ii) a generation time of the vehicle condition information, the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information;
present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and
accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator;
variably determine a first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on at least one variation factor, [mental process/step]
the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information being defined as an end time of a first valid period that has started since the generation time of the vehicle condition information, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote- control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information;
variably determine a second expiration term of the assistance information based on the at least one variation factor, [mental process/step]
the second expiration term of the assistance information being separated from the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information and defined as an end time of a second valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information; and
determine whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term; and [mental process/step]
send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the second expiration term of the assistance information upon determination that the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determination …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person able to determine if a remote-control action has been executed by the expiration terms from the acquired assistance information. It is merely a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, claims state additional limitations that are beyond the above-noted abstract idea as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A remote-control apparatus comprising:
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
receive, from a vehicle, (i) vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and a surrounding condition around the vehicle, and (ii) a generation time of the vehicle condition information, the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; [insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and
accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; [insignificant activity (displaying acquired information)]
variably determine a first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on at least one variation factor, [mental process/step]
the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information being defined as an end time of a first valid period that has started since the generation time of the vehicle condition information, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote- control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; [insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
variably determine a second expiration term of the assistance information based on the at least one variation factor, [mental process/step]
the second expiration term of the assistance information being separated from the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information and defined as an end time of a second valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information; and [insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
determine whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term; and [mental process/step]
send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the second expiration term of the assistance information upon determination that the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term. [insignificant post-solution activity (sending results of the mental process)]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive, from a vehicle…,” “present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator…” and “send, to the vehicle,… ” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (remote-controlled apparatus) to perform the process. In particular, the send step is merely sending the vehicle condition information determined of the remote vehicle to the remote-control apparatus, thus a form of insignificant post-solution activity of sending data. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering assistance and expiration term information for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The presenting results step to the remote operator by a terminal apparatus is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the acquired vehicle data), and amounts to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of “a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 2 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to perform used to determine an expiration term of the assistance information amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive, from a vehicle,…” “present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator…” and “send, to the vehicle…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 7, 10, 11 and 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims state the additional elements, such as the processor configured to read a program stored on a medium for performing the insignificant extra solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 2. Therefore, dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 7, 10, 11 and 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 2.
Further 35 USC 101 analysis of independent claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 – 21 are stated below:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to a remote-controlled vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 17 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 17 recites:
A remote-controlled vehicle comprising:
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to:
send, to a remote-control apparatus, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the remote-controlled vehicle and a surrounding condition around the remote-controlled vehicle, the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information;
receive, from the remote-control apparatus, (i) assistance information for remote assistance of the remote-controlled vehicle inputted by a remote operator; and (ii) an expiration term of the assistance information, the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance-information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, the expiration term of the assistance information being based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information;
execute a remote-control action instructed by the assistance information
upon determination that the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information has been executable by the expiration term of the assistance information. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “upon determination…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person able to determine an expiration term based on the received vehicle information. It is merely a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, claims state additional limitations that are beyond the above-noted abstract idea as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A remote-controlled vehicle comprising:
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
send, to a remote-control apparatus, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the remote-controlled vehicle and a surrounding condition around the remote-controlled vehicle, the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; [insignificant pre-solution activity (data sending)]
receive, from the remote-control apparatus, (i) assistance information for remote assistance of the remote-controlled vehicle inputted by a remote operator; and (ii) an expiration term of the assistance information, the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance-information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, the expiration term of the assistance information being based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; [insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
execute a remote-control action instructed by the assistance information [insignificant post-solution activity (sending results of the mental process)]
upon determination that the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information has been executable by the expiration term of the assistance information. [mental process/step]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “send, to a remote-control apparatus…”, “receive, from the remote-control apparatus…” and “execute a remote control action…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (remote-controlled vehicle) to perform the process. In particular, the send step is merely sending the vehicle condition information determined of the remote vehicle to the remote-control apparatus, thus a form of insignificant post-solution activity of sending data. The receiving steps from the remote-control apparatus are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering assistance and expiration term information for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of “a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Lastly, executing a remote-control action consists of action that are a pre-solution activity of sending data. The specifications on page 31 – 32 state the remote-control actions to include “(ii) information indicative of recognized objects, such as parked vehicles in front of the corresponding vehicle 10, (iii) an instruction indicative of a route or trajectory through which the corresponding vehicle 10 should travel,”, therefore reciting a pre-solution activity of sending assistance data pertaining to identified objects or instructions of a route or trajectory.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 23 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to perform used to determine an expiration term of the assistance information amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “send, to a remote-control apparatus…”, “receive, from the remote-control apparatus…” and “execute a remote control action…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 18 – 22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims state the additional elements, such as the processor configured to read a program stored on a medium for performing the insignificant extra solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 17. Therefore, dependent claims 18 – 22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 17.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 states: “perform one of a first measure and a second measure, the first measure being configured to: extract, from a correlation between items of a single expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the assistance information valid period, a value of the assistance information valid period that is suitable for the vehicle condition information; and determine the expiration term of the assistance information based on the extracted value of the assistance information valid period, the second measure being configured to: extract, from correlations between items of each expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the assistance information valid period, values of the assistance information valid period for the respective correlations, the values of the assistance information valid period that are suitable for the vehicle condition information; select one of the values of the assistance information valid period that is the shortest in all the values of the assistance information valid period; and determine the expiration term of the assistance information based on the selected shortest value of the assistance information valid period.”, however the first and second measures are performing the same task, thus indefinite on how they are different from each other. For example, both the first and second measures are extracting correlations from items with a expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the assistance information valid period. The second measure further states selecting a period that is the shortest of all the values however how is that different from the first measure? Both examine ITEMS (emphasis added) of expiration term variation factors. The claims differentiate the first measure items as having a single expiration-term variation factor however omitting the word “single” from the second measure does not mean the second measure cannot be interpreted the same as the first. What are the “each” expiration-term variation factor that makes it different from the single expiration-term variation factor?
Claim 4 states: “for each of the first and second expiration terms, one of a first measure and a second measure, the first measure being configured to: extract, from a correlation between items of a single expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the first valid period, a value of the first valid period that is suitable for the vehicle condition information; determine the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on the extracted value of the first valid period; extract, from a correlation between items of the single expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the second valid period, a value of the second valid period that is suitable for the vehicle condition information, determine the second expiration term of the assistance information based on the extracted value of the second valid period; the second measure being configured to: extract, from correlations between items of each expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the first valid period, values of the first valid period for the respective correlations, the values of the first valid period that are suitable for the vehicle condition information; select one of the values of the first valid period that is the shortest in all the values of the first valid period; determine the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on the selected shortest value of the first valid period; extract, from correlations between items of each expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the second valid period, values of the second valid period for the respective correlations, the values of the second valid period that are suitable for the vehicle condition information; select one of the values of the second valid period that is the shortest in all the values of the second valid period; determine the second expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on the selected shortest value of the second valid period.”, however like claim 3, it is indefinite on what is the difference between the first and second measures as they are both claimed to be performing the same task. For example, both the first and second measures are extracting correlations from items with a expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the assistance information valid period. The second measure further states selecting a period that is the shortest of all the values however how is that different from the first measure? Both examine ITEMS (emphasis added) of expiration term variation factors. The claims differentiate the first measure items as having a single expiration-term variation factor however omitting the word “single” from the second measure does not mean the second measure cannot be interpreted the same as the first. What are the “each” expiration-term variation factor that makes it different from the single expiration-term variation factor?
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatton et al. (US 20130225111 A1) further in view of Otaki et al. (US 20210058173 A1), Noto et al. (US 20180151074 A1) and Bowers et al. (US 20150035662 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hatton teaches a remote-control apparatus comprising: (Hatton: Claim 1: “A roadside assistance system comprising: a vehicle computing system (VCS), operable to wirelessly communicate with one or more remote systems through a wireless connection established with a wireless device; an intermediate system, operable to communicate with the VCS and at least one backend system; and a backend roadside assistance processing system, operable to receive data from the intermediate system through a data connection and operable to receive phone calls from the VCS,”)
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15: “A computer implemented method comprising: receiving a call from a vehicle computing system (VCS) relaying a request for roadside assistance;”,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and (Hatton: Claim 1: “wherein the VCS is operable to establish communication with the intermediate system responsive to a roadside assistance request, wherein the VCS is further operable to transfer vehicle and customer data to the intermediate system”; Paragraph 0038: “In this illustrative example, processing the roadside assistance command causes a variety of desirable data to be sent to one or more remote sources 205. This data is drawn, for example, without limitation, from vehicle operational data 207 available on vehicle networks (such as, but not limited to, a CAN bus). The data may include, but is not limited to, vehicle sensor data, onboard diagnostic data, fuel levels, odometer readings, tire pressures, restraint control module signals, and any other relevant or desired vehicle or occupant related data. In certain vehicles, data about the specific occupants may be known, including, but not limited to, medical data, emergency contact data, etc.”; Paragraph 0061: “For example, if a customer was traveling in an unknown location and ran out of gas, the vehicle may be stopped in proximity to, but out of sight of, a gas station. Once the roadside assistance had dispatched or at least diagnosed the problem, information relating to a proximate gas station may be shown. This may give the user the option of simply walking to get gas, as opposed to waiting for assistance. Or the user could elect to walk to a nearby location for food/shelter (as may be shown by the display) and use the connection or display to inform the roadside assistance personnel that the user would like to be met at that location.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle data and location of the vehicle is sent to the remote-control apparatus. In the example above, the information about the vehicle being out of fuel and the location is the data sent)
… present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and (Hatton: Paragraph 0042: “Prior to delivery to the roadside assistance center, the vehicle related data was transformed, in this example, into easily readable and understandable plain English 239, so that the processor/dispatcher can understand what potential issues need to be addressed by service personnel. This data 243 was relayed from an intermediate processing system, which, among other things, can allowed a dealer/OEM to further receive data relating to vehicles in service and potentially diagnose and address commonly occurring problems, for example.”)
accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; (Hatton: Paragraph 0052: “Once the data has been relayed for processing and forwarding, the system may also connect a voice call 212 so that the occupant of the vehicle and the VCS can communicate with an assistance dispatch/backend for sending and receiving information relating to an assistance request.”; Paragraphs 0066 – 0067: “a vehicle is capable of receiving data relating to a request in progress 501. For purposes of the example only, the data includes an assistance related phone number (such as a phone number of assistance personnel) and an estimated time of arrival. The relevant phone number 503 and time of arrival (or timer) 505 are displayed on, for example, a vehicle infotainment system. This can help the customer determine when assistance should arrive, and give the customer a means of contacting the assistance personnel if a situation changes. If the time has passed or a timer expires 507, the process can place an automatic call 509 to either a service personnel or a roadside assistance center 509. Additionally or alternatively, an automated reminder (text, data packet, email, etc.) can be sent to one or more service related sources 511. Responsive to the reminder and/or call, updated assistance data 501 may be received and the process may start over.”,
Supplemental Note: the dispatcher can send assistance information. In another example, a timer can start when the assistance service has started)
… the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067: “a vehicle is capable of receiving data relating to a request in progress 501. For purposes of the example only, the data includes an assistance related phone number (such as a phone number of assistance personnel) and an estimated time of arrival. The relevant phone number 503 and time of arrival (or timer) 505 are displayed on, for example, a vehicle infotainment system. This can help the customer determine when assistance should arrive, and give the customer a means of contacting the assistance personnel if a situation changes. If the time has passed or a timer expires 507, the process can place an automatic call 509 to either a service personnel or a roadside assistance center 509. Additionally or alternatively, an automated reminder (text, data packet, email, etc.) can be sent to one or more service related sources 511. Responsive to the reminder and/or call, updated assistance data 501 may be received and the process may start over.”,
Supplemental Note: the determiner is interpreted as the ability to determine the time of arrival of the service assistance to the host vehicle. This data is sent to the vehicle to be displayed on the screen)
… send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the expiration term of the assistance information (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067: “a vehicle is capable of receiving data relating to a request in progress 501. For purposes of the example only, the data includes an assistance related phone number (such as a phone number of assistance personnel) and an estimated time of arrival. The relevant phone number 503 and time of arrival (or timer) 505 are displayed on, for example, a vehicle infotainment system. This can help the customer determine when assistance should arrive, and give the customer a means of contacting the assistance personnel if a situation changes. If the time has passed or a timer expires 507, the process can place an automatic call 509 to either a service personnel or a roadside assistance center 509. Additionally or alternatively, an automated reminder (text, data packet, email, etc.) can be sent to one or more service related sources 511. Responsive to the reminder and/or call, updated assistance data 501 may be received and the process may start over.”,
Supplemental Note: the determiner is interpreted as the ability to determine the time of arrival of the service assistance to the host vehicle. This data is sent to the vehicle to be displayed on the screen).
In sum, Hatton teaches a remote-control apparatus comprising: a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to: receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the expiration term of the assistance information. Hatton however does not teach a surrounding condition around the vehicle.
Otaki teaches a surrounding condition around the vehicle, (Otaki: Paragraph 0038: “The external sensor 22 is a vehicle-mounted sensor that detects an external environment of the autonomous driving vehicle 2. The external sensor 22 transmits the detected detection information (sensor information) to the autonomous driving ECU 20.”; Paragraph 0053: “When it is determined that the remote instruction request is required, the remote instruction request unit 34 transmits detection information (sensor information) of the external sensor 22 that detects the external environment, to the remote instruction apparatus 1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hatton and Otaki teach the ability of the vehicle to send vehicle data to a remote location for assistance. Otaki further teaches the ability of the vehicle to gather additional data from the external sensors and transmit that information to the remote instruction apparatus which would be obvious to try by one with knowledge in the art with the vehicle system of Hatton. For example, the additional external information allows for the remote location to gather additional vehicle data to better determine the type of assistance needed. This can aid the dispatcher in the remote location to better understand the situation of the vehicle. Hatton in view of Otaki however still do not teach the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Noto teaches the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (Noto: Paragraph 0010: “According to this type of configuration, when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the safety level at the time of the operation of automatic emergency braking, at least one among the pattern which continues the automatic emergency braking until the vehicle stops, and the pattern which releases the automatic emergency braking can be used in accordance with the traveling scene of the vehicle at that time.”)
(ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; (Noto: Paragraph 0045: “The TTC calculation unit 71 performs a tracking process which stores the relative position information (the distance, lateral position and the like) and the relative speed information relative to the own vehicle for a predetermined period of time on the basis of the identification effect and the like for the object detected by at least one of the front camera sensor 21A and the radar sensor 22. Moreover, the process which calculates the time to collision (hereinafter, referred to as “TTC”) which is the margin time until the own vehicle collides with the object is implemented by, for example, a well-known method such as dividing the relative distance by the relative speed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Noto with a reasonable expectation of success. Noto teaches the ability to determine when a vehicle is to collide with an obstacle and provide vehicle control to avoid the potential accident. It performs this function by determining the traveling scene and the time-to-collision (TTC) with respect to the obstacle. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the ability to gather the traveling scene as taught by Noto to be a simple substitution with the vehicle system of Hatton. Hatton teaches the ability to gather vehicle sensor data, or any relevant data (Hatton: Paragraph 0038). Noto also teaches the use of sensors to capture the vehicle environment and the traveling scene (Noto: Paragraph 0023), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would find both of the vehicle sensor data captured by both vehicles to be merely a simple substitution. Furthermore, Noto’s ability to determine the TTC would be obvious to try to implement with the vehicle system of Hatton by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, if a vehicle per Hatton is to collide with an obstacle, calculating and sending the TTC, as taught by Noto, to the roadside assistance center (Hatton: Paragraph 0042) would allow the roadside assistance center to give guidance on how to avoid the potential crash. This combination increases the safety of the passengers as the assistance center is able to guide the driver to safety. Hatton in view of Noto still do not teach variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Bowers teaches variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”)
… the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; and (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Bowers with a reasonable expectation of success. Bowers teaches a adaptive sensing system that is able to determine if the vehicle is going to occur a potential collision. The system is able to gather data about the obstacle and provide collision avoidance actions in which the driver is prevented from controlling the vehicle until the action is completed or the obstacle has moved (Bowers: Paragraph 0073). One of ordinary skill in the arts would find it obvious to try to implement this system with the vehicle system of Hatton. Hatton teaches sending vehicle information to a roadside assistance center in which a dispatcher can provide assistance. Sending the dispatcher information about a potential crash allowing the vehicle to lock out the driver’s actions would allow the dispatcher to determine to implement the collision avoidance actions which mitigate the potential collision. This combination increases the safety of the passengers in the vehicle as the dispatchers would be able to determine if any collision avoidance actions are needed.
Regarding claim 2, Hatton teaches a remote-control apparatus comprising: (Hatton: Claim 1)
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
receive, from a vehicle, (i) vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and (Hatton: Claim 1; Paragraph 0061,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle data and location of the vehicle is sent to the remote-control apparatus. In the example above, the information about the vehicle being out of fuel and the location is the data sent)
… (ii) a generation time of the vehicle condition information, the vehicle condition information including at least (Hatton: Paragraph 0056,
Supplemental Note: the system can send the vehicle data at the start of a roadside assistance being requested)
… present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and (Hatton: Paragraph 0042)
accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; (Hatton: Paragraph 0052; Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the dispatcher can send assistance information. In another example, a timer can start when the assistance service has started)
… the second expiration term of the assistance information being separated from the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information and defined as an end time of a second valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information; and (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the time of arrival or timer can be updated if the situation changes or the timer has expired).
In sum, Hatton teaches a remote-control apparatus comprising: a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to: receive, from a vehicle, (i) vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and (ii) a generation time of the vehicle condition information, the vehicle condition information including at least present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; the second expiration term of the assistance information being separated from the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information and defined as an end time of a second valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information. Hatton, however does not teach a surrounding condition around the vehicle.
Otaki teaches a surrounding condition around the vehicle, and (Otaki: Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Hatton in view of Otaki however does not teach (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Noto teaches (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (Noto: Paragraph 0010: “According to this type of configuration, when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the safety level at the time of the operation of automatic emergency braking, at least one among the pattern which continues the automatic emergency braking until the vehicle stops, and the pattern which releases the automatic emergency braking can be used in accordance with the traveling scene of the vehicle at that time.”)
(ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; (Noto: Paragraph 0045: “The TTC calculation unit 71 performs a tracking process which stores the relative position information (the distance, lateral position and the like) and the relative speed information relative to the own vehicle for a predetermined period of time on the basis of the identification effect and the like for the object detected by at least one of the front camera sensor 21A and the radar sensor 22. Moreover, the process which calculates the time to collision (hereinafter, referred to as “TTC”) which is the margin time until the own vehicle collides with the object is implemented by, for example, a well-known method such as dividing the relative distance by the relative speed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Noto with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Hatton in view of Noto however still do not teach variably determine a first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on at least one variation factor, the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information being defined as an end time of a first valid period that has started since the generation time of the vehicle condition information, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote- control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; variably determine a second expiration term of the assistance information based on the at least one variation factor, determine whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term; and send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the second expiration term of the assistance information upon determination that the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term.
Bowers teaches variably determine a first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on at least one variation factor,
the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information being defined as an end time of a first valid period that has started since the generation time of the vehicle condition information, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote- control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”)
with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; (Bowers: Paragraph 0028: “Detecting potential collisions may comprise generating a collision detection model. As used herein, a "collision detection model" refers to a kinematic object model of objects in a vicinity of the vehicle. The collision detection model may, therefore, comprise object position, velocity, acceleration, orientation, size, and so on. In some embodiments, the collision detection model further comprises object weight estimates, maneuverability estimates, and so on.”)
variably determine a second expiration term of the assistance information based on the at least one variation factor,
… determine whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term; and
send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”; Paragraph 0037: “The collision detection model 122 may further comprise collision avoidance information, which may comprise instructions on how to avoid potential collisions detected by the collision detection module 124. The collision avoidance information may pertain to the vehicle 102 and/or other vehicles 103, 104, and/or 105. The collision avoidance information may further comprise information to allow the vehicle 102 to avoid becoming involved in collision(s) involving other vehicles (e.g., avoid a potential result of a collision between vehicles 103 and 105).”,
Supplemental Note: the first expiration term is interpreted as the pre-determined time to a potential collision)
the second expiration term of the assistance information upon determination that the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term (Bowers: Paragraph 0073: “The collision detection module 124 may be configured such that the automatic collision avoidance actions cannot be overridden by the vehicle operator. Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to "lock out" the vehicle operator from portions of the vehicle control system 106. Access to the vehicle control system 106 may be restored after the automatic collision avoidance actions are complete and/or the collision detection module 124 determines that the potential collision has been avoided.”,
Supplemental Note: once a collision avoidance measure has started, the driver is locked out until the potential collision has been avoided. The ‘lock out’ time is interpreted as the second expiration term).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Bowers with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 1, Bowers teaches a adaptive sensing system that is able to determine if the vehicle is going to occur a potential collision. The system is able to gather data about the obstacle and provide collision avoidance actions in which the driver is prevented from controlling the vehicle until the action is completed or the obstacle has moved (Bowers: Paragraph 0073). One of ordinary skill in the arts would find it obvious to try to implement this system with the vehicle system of Hatton. Hatton teaches sending vehicle information to a roadside assistance center in which a dispatcher can provide assistance. Sending the dispatcher information about a potential crash allowing the vehicle to lock out the driver’s actions would allow the dispatcher to determine to implement the collision avoidance actions which mitigate the potential crash. This combination increases the safety of the passengers in the vehicle as the dispatchers would be able to determine if any collision avoidance actions are needed.
Regarding claim 3, Hatton, as modified, teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
perform one of a first measure and a second measure, the first measure being configured to: extract, from a correlation between items of a single expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the assistance information valid period, a value of the assistance information valid period that is suitable for the vehicle condition information; and determine the expiration term of the assistance information based on the extracted value of the assistance information valid period, (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle data and the type of assistance required, the system is then able to determine the time of arrival or a timer to estimate the time to assistance)
the second measure being configured to:
extract, from correlations between items of each expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the assistance information valid period, values of the assistance information valid period for the respective correlations, the values of the assistance information valid period that are suitable for the vehicle condition information;
select one of the values of the assistance information valid period that is the shortest in all the values of the assistance information valid period; and
determine the expiration term of the assistance information based on the selected shortest value of the assistance information valid period (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle data and the type of assistance required, the system is then able to determine the time of arrival or a timer to estimate the time to assistance. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(b) section for the indefiniteness rejection. Per that rejection, both first and second measures are interpreted as the same).
Regarding claim 4, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
perform, for each of the first and second expiration terms, one of a first measure and a second measure, the first measure being configured to: extract, from a correlation between items of a single expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the first valid period, a value of the first valid period that is suitable for the vehicle condition information; determine the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on the extracted value of the first valid period; (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle data and the type of assistance required, the system is then able to determine the time of arrival or a timer to estimate the time to assistance)
extract, from a correlation between items of the single expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the second valid period, a value of the second valid period that is suitable for the vehicle condition information; determine the second expiration term of the assistance information based on the extracted value of the second valid period; (Hatton: Paragraphs 0067 – 0068,
Supplemental Note: the process can start over or update the service time when the first timer or arrival time runs out)
the second measure being configured to: extract, from correlations between items of each expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the first valid period, values of the first valid period for the respective correlations, the values of the first valid period that are suitable for the vehicle condition information; select one of the values of the first valid period that is the shortest in all the values of the first valid period; determine the first expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on the selected shortest value of the first valid period; (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle data and the type of assistance required, the system is then able to determine the time of arrival or a timer to estimate the time to assistance)
extract, from correlations between items of each expiration-term variation factor and corresponding respective values of the second valid period, values of the second valid period for the respective correlations, the values of the second valid period that are suitable for the vehicle condition information; select one of the values of the second valid period that is the shortest in all the values of the second valid period; determine the second expiration term of the vehicle condition information based on the selected shortest value of the second valid period (Hatton: Paragraphs 0067 – 0068,
Supplemental Note: the process can start over or update the service time when the first timer or arrival time runs out).
Regarding claim 5, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the single expiration-term variation factor or the expiration-term variation factors include at least one of: (I) which of traveling scenes determined by the vehicle; (II) which of remote-control action contents inputted by the remote operator; (III) a length of a cancellation period for which a remote-control action instructed by the assistance information is cancellable; (IV) a length of a margin time previously determined for the remote-control action; (V) an extent of a change of the surrounding condition around the vehicle; and (VI) a length of the time to collision calculated for the vehicle (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: only one of the factors have to be taught).
Regarding claim 6, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
obtain a third valid period that represents a period for which the remote-control action based on the assistance information is executable; (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the time of arrival or timer can be updated if the situation changes or the timer has expired)
and subtract the second valid period from the third valid period to accordingly calculate the first valid period (Hatton: Paragraph 0056; Paragraph 0062,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle collection happens when the roadside assistance request is needed. The vehicle data can also be sent when making a call. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection for the claim as both the second and third valid periods are interpreted to be the same therefore the vehicle collection from a phone call is interpreted as the first valid period).
Regarding claim 7, Hatton, as modified, teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
obtain a third valid period that represents a period for which the remote-control action based on the assistance information is executable; (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the time of arrival or timer can be updated if the situation changes or the timer has expired)
obtain a predetermined period from the generation time of the vehicle condition information to the input time of the assistance information; and
subtract the predetermined period from the third valid period to accordingly calculate the second valid period (Hatton: Paragraph 0056; Paragraph 0057,
Supplemental Note: the system can send the vehicle data at the start of a roadside assistance being requested. The vehicle data can also be sent when making a call. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection for the claim as both the second and third valid periods are interpreted to be the same therefore the vehicle collection from a phone call is interpreted as the first valid period).
Regarding claim 8, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein:
the vehicle condition information includes a selected one of the traveling scenes; and (Hatton: Paragraphs 0037 – 0038,
Supplemental Note: an emergency situation is interpreted as a traveling scene)
the processor is further configured to read the program to (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
extract, from a correlation between each traveling scene to be determined by the vehicle and a corresponding value of the third valid period, a value of the third valid period that is suitable for the selected one of the traveling scenes (Hatton: Paragraph 0059 – 0060,
Supplemental Note: the timer or estimated service arrival time is interpreted as the third valid period).
Regarding claim 9, Hatton, as modified, teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance).
In sum, Hatton teaches a processor configured to read a program. Hatton however does not teach to determine, during an emergency and/or an occurrence of an anomaly associated with the remote-control apparatus, a first predetermined expiration term for an emergency/anomaly response as the expiration term of the vehicle condition information, and a second predetermined expiration term for the emergency/anomaly response as the expiration term of the assistance information.
Otaki teaches wherein: the determiner is configured to determine, during an emergency and/or an occurrence of an anomaly associated with the remote-control apparatus, a first predetermined expiration term for an emergency/anomaly response as the expiration term of the vehicle condition information, and a second predetermined expiration term for the emergency/anomaly response as the expiration term of the assistance information (Otaki: Paragraph 0065; Paragraph 0067 – 0070,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle condition information and the assistance information both expire if the data is not communicated within the first threshold, therefore interpreted as both the first and second predetermined expiration terms. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection for the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hatton and Otaki teach the ability of the vehicle to send vehicle data to a remote location for assistance. Otaki further teaches the ability of rejecting a remote instruction if the time from when the vehicle data collected and the remote instruction reaching the vehicle is above a threshold time. Otaki teaches this as to reduce an incorrect remote instruction being sent for the wrong time period. For example, if the vehicle is moving and the remote instruction takes longer than 60 seconds to get to the vehicle, the instruction is incorrect as the vehicle has moved to another location. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Otaki with the vehicle system of Hatton for these reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Hatton, as modified, teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance).
In sum, Hatton teaches a processor configured to read a program. Hatton, however does not teach to abandon the assistance information upon determination that the assistance information has not been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term.
Otaki teaches the sender is configured to abandon the assistance information upon determination that the assistance information has not been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term (Otaki: Paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 9 as they state the same pretenses, therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 11, Hatton, as modified, teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance).
In sum, Hatton teaches a processor configured to read a program. Hatton, however does not teach to send, to the remote operator, a time-expired notice of the expiration term of the vehicle condition information upon determination that the assistance information has not been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term.
Otaki teaches the accepting unit is configured to send, to the remote operator, a time-expired notice of the expiration term of the vehicle condition information upon determination that the assistance information has not been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term (Otaki: Paragraph 0069 - 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 9 as they state the same pretenses, therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 12, Hatton, as modified, teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
accept new assistance information from the remote operator based on a latest item of the vehicle condition information after sending, to the remote operator, a time-expired notice of the expiration term of each of the vehicle condition information and the assistance information (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067).
Regarding claim 13, Hatton, as modified, teaches further comprising: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
determine whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term, wherein: (Hatton: Paragraph 0056; Paragraph 0062,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle collection happens when the roadside assistance request is needed. The vehicle data can also be sent when making a call).
In sum, Hatton teaches : the processor is further configured to read the program to: determine whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term. Hatton however does not teach receive, together with the vehicle condition information and the generation time of the vehicle condition information, a synchronous error in the vehicle; determine, while taking into account both the synchronous error in the vehicle and a synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus, whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term; and send, to the vehicle, (i) the assistance information, (ii) the second expiration term of the assistance information, and (iii) the synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus.
Otaki teaches receive, together with the vehicle condition information and the generation time of the vehicle condition information, a synchronous error in the vehicle; (Otaki: Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0053; Paragraph 0065)
determine, while taking into account both the synchronous error in the vehicle and a synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus, whether the assistance information has been inputted to the remote-control apparatus by the first expiration term; and send, to the vehicle, (i) the assistance information, (ii) the second expiration term of the assistance information, and (iii) the synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus (Otaki: Paragraphs 0067 – 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hatton and Otaki teach the ability of the vehicle to send vehicle data to a remote location for assistance. Otaki further teaches the ability to synchronize the data sent by the vehicle and the remote center. If the data transfer is above a first threshold, the system rejects that remote instruction and thus the vehicle does not follow the remote instruction. This reduces any issues of sending a remote instruction that was meant for a previous time of the vehicle’s path. For example, if the connection between the remote center and the vehicle is poor, the data transfer is known to be slower. If the data sent to the remote center is slow then the remote center is working with old data and therefore sending the wrong assistance instructions. Once over a first threshold, Otaki teaches the ability to reject the instruction and therefore not implementing an old and possibly incorrect instruction to the vehicle. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Otaki with the vehicle system of Hatton for these reasons.
Regarding claim 14, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the remote-control apparatus performs packet communications with the vehicle; and (Hatton: Paragraph 0066)
information representing or associated with the expiration information and a determination target of the expiration information are communicated while being stored in a packet (Hatton: Paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 15, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: information representing the generation time of the vehicle condition information and the vehicle condition information are received while being stored in a first selected packet as the packet; and (Hatton: Paragraphs 0044 – 0046)
information representing the expiration term of the assistance information and the assistance information are sent while being stored in a second selected packet as the packet (Hatton: Paragraph 0066,
Supplemental Note: the first packet is the vehicle data being transferred to the remote-control apparatus and the second packet is the aid information sent to the vehicle and it’s occupant).
Regarding claim 16, Hatton, as modified, does not teach wherein: information representing a synchronous error in the vehicle and the vehicle condition information are received while being stored in a third selected packet as the packet; and information representing a synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus is sent while being stored in a fourth selected packet as the packet.
Otaki teaches wherein: information representing a synchronous error in the vehicle and the vehicle condition information are received while being stored in a third selected packet as the packet; and (Otaki: Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0053; Paragraph 0065)
information representing a synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus is sent while being stored in a fourth selected packet as the packet. (Otaki: Paragraphs 0067 – 0069)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed for claim 13, both Hatton and Otaki teach the ability of the vehicle to send vehicle data to a remote location for assistance. Otaki further teaches the ability to synchronize the data sent by the vehicle and the remote center. If the data transfer is above a first threshold, the system rejects that remote instruction and thus the vehicle does not follow the remote instruction. This reduces any issues of sending a remote instruction that was meant for a previous time of the vehicle’s path. For example, if the connection between the remote center and the vehicle is poor, the data transfer is known to be slower. If the data sent to the remote center is slow then the remote center is working with old data and therefore sending the wrong assistance instructions. Once over a first threshold, Otaki teaches the ability to reject the instruction and therefore not implementing an old and possibly incorrect instruction to the vehicle. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Otaki with the vehicle system of Hatton for these reasons.
Regarding claim 17, Hatton teaches a remote-controlled vehicle comprising: (Hatton: Paragraph 0018; Paragraph 0060)
a storage medium storing a program; and
a processor configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Paragraph 0019)
send, to a remote-control apparatus, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the remote-controlled vehicle and (Hatton: Claim 1; Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0061,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle data and location of the vehicle is sent to the remote-control apparatus. In the example above, the information about the vehicle being out of fuel and the location is the data sent)
… receive, from the remote-control apparatus, (i) assistance information for remote assistance of the remote-controlled vehicle inputted by a remote operator; and (ii) an expiration term of the assistance information, the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance-information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, (Hatton: Paragraph 0059 – 0060)
… execute a remote-control action instructed by the assistance information
upon determination that the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information has been executable by the expiration term of the assistance information. (Hatton: Paragraph 0060; Paragraph 0061)
In sum, Hatton teaches a remote-controlled vehicle comprising: a storage medium storing a program; and a processor configured to read the program to: send, to a remote-control apparatus, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the remote-controlled vehicle receive, from the remote-control apparatus, (i) assistance information for remote assistance of the remote-controlled vehicle inputted by a remote operator; and (ii) an expiration term of the assistance information, the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance-information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, execute a remote-control action instructed by the assistance information upon determination that the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information has been executable by the expiration term of the assistance information. Hatton, however does not teach a surrounding condition around the remote-controlled vehicle.
Otaki teaches a surrounding condition around the remote-controlled vehicle, (Otaki: Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0053)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed for claim 1, both Hatton and Otaki teach the ability of the vehicle to send vehicle data to a remote location for assistance. Otaki further teaches the ability of the vehicle to send additional data from the external sensors and transmit that information to the remote instruction apparatus which would be obvious to try by one with knowledge in the art with the vehicle system of Hatton. For example, the additional external information allows for the remote location to gather additional vehicle data to better determine the type of assistance needed. This can aid the dispatcher in the remote location to better understand the situation of the vehicle. Hatton in view of Otaki however does not teach the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Noto teaches the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (Noto: Paragraph 0010: “According to this type of configuration, when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the safety level at the time of the operation of automatic emergency braking, at least one among the pattern which continues the automatic emergency braking until the vehicle stops, and the pattern which releases the automatic emergency braking can be used in accordance with the traveling scene of the vehicle at that time.”)
(ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; (Noto: Paragraph 0045: “The TTC calculation unit 71 performs a tracking process which stores the relative position information (the distance, lateral position and the like) and the relative speed information relative to the own vehicle for a predetermined period of time on the basis of the identification effect and the like for the object detected by at least one of the front camera sensor 21A and the radar sensor 22. Moreover, the process which calculates the time to collision (hereinafter, referred to as “TTC”) which is the margin time until the own vehicle collides with the object is implemented by, for example, a well-known method such as dividing the relative distance by the relative speed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Noto with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Hatton in view of Noto however still do not teach the expiration term of the assistance information being based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Bowers teaches the expiration term of the assistance information being based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Bowers with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 18, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
upon determination that the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information has not been executable by the expiration term of the assistance information, abandon the assistance information before execution of the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0068: “FIG. 5 shows an illustrative example of a roadside assistance update process. In this illustrative example, a vehicle is capable of receiving data relating to a request in progress 501. For purposes of the example only, the data includes an assistance related phone number (such as a phone number of assistance personnel) and an estimated time of arrival. The relevant phone number 503 and time of arrival (or timer) 505 are displayed on, for example, a vehicle infotainment system. This can help the customer determine when assistance should arrive, and give the customer a means of contacting the assistance personnel if a situation changes. If the time has passed or a timer expires 507, the process can place an automatic call 509 to either a service personnel or a roadside assistance center 509. Additionally or alternatively, an automated reminder (text, data packet, email, etc.) can be sent to one or more service related sources 511. Responsive to the reminder and/or call, updated assistance data 501 may be received and the process may start over. For example, if assistance personnel are stuck in traffic, this process could serve as a way to automatedly relay and update assistance related data to a customer without causing the customer to have to place calls, wait on hold, etc.”,
Supplemental Note: the system is able to update the vehicle information in the form of a call when the timer runs out).
Regarding claim 19, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
send, to the remote-control apparatus, a time-expired notice of the expiration term of the assistance information (Hatton: Paragraph 0067: “If the time has passed or a timer expires 507, the process can place an automatic call 509 to either a service personnel or a roadside assistance center 509.”).
Regarding claim 20, Hatton, as modified, teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
send, to the remote-control apparatus, one of: a generation time of the vehicle condition information; and (Hatton: Paragraph 0056,
Supplemental Note: the system can send the vehicle data at the start of a roadside assistance being requested).
In sum, Hatton teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to read the program to send, to the remote-control apparatus, one of: a generation time of the vehicle condition information. Hatton however does not teach an expiration term of the vehicle condition information.
Otaki teaches an expiration term of the vehicle condition information (Otaki: Paragraph 0066; Paragraph 0067 – 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Hatton and Otaki teach the ability of the vehicle to send vehicle data to a remote location for assistance. Otaki further teaches the ability of rejecting a remote instruction if the time from when the vehicle data collected and the remote instruction reaching the vehicle is above a threshold time. This is the expiration term of the vehicle condition information as this reduces any opportunity of sending the wrong or delayed remote instruction. As stated for claim 9, if the vehicle is moving and the remote instruction takes longer than 60 seconds to get to the vehicle, the instruction is incorrect as the vehicle has moved to another location. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Otaki with the vehicle system of Hatton for these reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Hatton, as modified, teaches further comprising: the processor is further configured to read the program to: (Hatton: Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
determine whether the remote-controlled vehicle is able to execute the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information by the expiration term of the assistance information; (Hatton: Paragraph 0056; Paragraph 0062,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle collection happens when the roadside assistance request is needed. The vehicle data can also be sent when making a call as well)
In sum, Hatton teaches the processor is further configured to read the program to: determine whether the remote-controlled vehicle is able to execute the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information by the expiration term of the assistance information;. Hatton, however does not teach to receive, from the remote-control apparatus, a synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus together with the assistance information; and determine, while taking into account both the synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus, and a synchronous error in the vehicle, whether the remote-controlled vehicle is able to execute the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information by the expiration term of the assistance information.
Otaki teaches receive, from the remote-control apparatus, a synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus together with the assistance information; and (Otaki: Paragraph 0065)
determine, while taking into account both the synchronous error in the remote-control apparatus, and a synchronous error in the vehicle, whether the remote-controlled vehicle is able to execute the remote-control action instructed by the assistance information by the expiration term of the assistance information (Otaki: Paragraphs 0067 – 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 13 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 22, Hatton, as modified, teaches a remote-control system comprising: a remote-control apparatus according to claim 1;. (Please refer to the 35 USC 103 rejection for claims 1)
Regarding claim 23, Hatton teaches a program product for a processor, the program product comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
a set of computer program instructions embedded in the computer-readable medium, the instructions causing the processor to: (Hatton: Claim 1; Claim 15,
Supplemental Note: the computer is able to receive a request for roadside assistance)
receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and (Hatton: Claim 1; Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0061,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle data and location of the vehicle is sent to the remote-control apparatus. In the example above, the information about the vehicle being out of fuel and the location is the data sent)
… present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and (Hatton: Paragraph 0042)
accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; (Hatton: Paragraph 0052; Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the dispatcher can send assistance information. In another example, a timer can start when the assistance service has started)
… the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the determiner is interpreted as the ability to determine the time of arrival of the service assistance to the host vehicle. This data is sent to the vehicle to be displayed on the screen)
… send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the expiration term of the assistance information. (Hatton: Paragraphs 0066 – 0067,
Supplemental Note: the determiner is interpreted as the ability to determine the time of arrival of the service assistance to the host vehicle. This data is sent to the vehicle to be displayed on the screen)
In sum, Hatton teaches a program product for a processor, the program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and a set of computer program instructions embedded in the computer-readable medium, the instructions causing the processor to: receive, from a vehicle, vehicle condition information representing a condition of the vehicle and present, through a terminal apparatus usable by a remote operator, the vehicle condition information to the remote operator; and accept assistance information for remote assistance of the vehicle inputted through the terminal apparatus by the remote operator; the expiration term of the assistance information being defined as an end time of an assistance information valid period that has started since an input time of the assistance information, send, to the vehicle, a single packet that contains the assistance information and the expiration term of the assistance information. Hatton, however still does not teach a surrounding condition around the vehicle.
Otaki teaches a surrounding condition around the vehicle, (Otaki: Paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Otaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Hatton in view of Otaki however does not teach the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Noto teaches the vehicle condition information including at least (i) a remote-control traveling scene indicative of a determination result of a traveling scene of the vehicle and (Noto: Paragraph 0010: “According to this type of configuration, when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the safety level at the time of the operation of automatic emergency braking, at least one among the pattern which continues the automatic emergency braking until the vehicle stops, and the pattern which releases the automatic emergency braking can be used in accordance with the traveling scene of the vehicle at that time.”)
(ii) a calculated time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; (Noto: Paragraph 0045: “The TTC calculation unit 71 performs a tracking process which stores the relative position information (the distance, lateral position and the like) and the relative speed information relative to the own vehicle for a predetermined period of time on the basis of the identification effect and the like for the object detected by at least one of the front camera sensor 21A and the radar sensor 22. Moreover, the process which calculates the time to collision (hereinafter, referred to as “TTC”) which is the margin time until the own vehicle collides with the object is implemented by, for example, a well-known method such as dividing the relative distance by the relative speed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Noto with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Hatton in view of Noto however still do not teach variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information.
Bowers teaches variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term, (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”)
the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information; and (Bowers: Paragraph 0072: “The consent may be requested at the time a potential collision is detected and/or may be requested a priori, before a potential collision is detected. The consent may expire after a pre-determined time and/or in response to certain, pre-determined conditions (e.g., after the potential collision has been avoided, after the vehicle 102 is shut down, etc.). Accordingly, the collision detection module 124 may be configured to periodically re-request the consent of the vehicle operator. For example, the adaptive sensing system 101 may request consent to implement automatic collision avoidance actions each time the vehicle 102 is started.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Hatton with the teachings of Bowers with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Objection of the REMARKS, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to claim objections of claims 8 and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 8 and 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the REMARKS, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to interpretations of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13 and 17 – 21 have been considered but are not persuasive. Examiner states all but the claim interpretation of a “first measure configured to” and “second measure configured to” of claims 3 and 4 stand. The claims do not provide proper structural limitations specifying how the first and second measures are configured to perform their claimed function.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of the REMARKS, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejection of claims 1 – 23 have been considered but are not persuasive. Examiner states how in the interview a suggestion was made of describing how the “time-to-collision” is calculated as a human cannot mentally perform this task in the mind. With respect to the current amendments of independent claims 1, 2, 17 and 23, the claims do now recite how the expiration terms is based on a variation factor where the variation factor includes at least one type of remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with at least one selected obstacle, however, examiner states the traveling scene and calculated time to collision is still received per the vehicle condition information. This information being received is an insignificant extra-solution activity the vehicle information is used to then determine the expiration term of assistance information. The mental process is still the determining of the expiration term and not the time-to-collision as that is part of the vehicle condition information that is being received. Please see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the REMARKS, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejection of claims 1 – 23 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states how the prior art of Hatton in view of Otaki fail to establish prima facie case of obviousness. The applicant however does not point out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions or discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Regarding the amended claim limitation of “variably determine an expiration term of the assistance information based on at least one variation factor of the expiration term” in which “the at least one variation factor including at least one of a type of the remote-control traveling scene and the time to collision of the vehicle with the at least one selected obstacle included in the vehicle condition information”, examiner agrees is not fully taught by the prior art of Hatton in view of Otaki. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Noto (US 20180151074 A1) and Bowers (US 20150035662 A1). Independent claims 2, 17 and 23 include the similar claim amendments to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Dependent claims 3 – 16 and 18 – 22 are still rejected per their dependency on the independent claims. Please see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
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 SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665