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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 12/22/2025. Currently claims 1-3, 6-8 are pending and claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended from the original claim set dated 9/14/2023. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10 have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-162379, filed on 10/7/2022.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action.
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 1-3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-3, 6-8, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-3) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 6 and its dependent claims (claims 7-8) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1 and 6, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “Concepts relating to commercial or legal interactions (including: advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to observe and manage remote business operations. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform a similar function to a security guard company which monitors a remote area and then facilitates some action when required. The abstract elements of claims 1 and 6, recite in part “Assign to operator…Business includes…Determining if operator is currently engaged…Appoint operator…”. Dependent claims 2-3 and 7-8 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Determine if operator is already engaged…Determine whether engaged with another vehicle…Output trigger…Determine if two or more operators…Select operator…Change output condition…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 6.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1 and 6, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Processors…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 2 and 7 add the additional element which recites in part “Infrastructure sensor…” which again limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is again insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is also merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 3, 8, do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1 and 6, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Processors …”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (observe and manage remote business operations) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 2 and 7 include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination and in view of their respective independent claims, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 7 include the additional element which recites in part “Infrastructure sensor …” These are the similar additional elements that are addressed above in claims 1 and 6, and are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (observe and manage remote business operations) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This generality is exemplified in [0024] of the specification which states “a camera and a recognition sensor mounted to a road structure will be collectively referred to as an "infrastructure sensor."
Additionally, dependent claims 3, 8, do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190163176 A1) in view of Itsumi et al. (WO 2022070428 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 6 (Amended), Wang discloses a method for managing a remote service for mobile objects (Wang ¶2 - a new and useful method for transferring control of an autonomous vehicle to a remote operator in the field of autonomous vehicles), the method comprising the step of assigning, when a start trigger of a service business to an object for which the remote service is provided is output, the service business to at least one operator among a plurality of operators engaged in the remote service (Wang ¶63 - the remote operator manager can assign the autonomous vehicle to a remote operator and enable selection of navigational actions specified by this remote operator trigger at this remote operator's portal. The autonomous vehicle can then execute navigational actions selected by the remote operator via the remote operator portal in Block S154), wherein: the service business includes a first business which affects travel efficiency of the object of the remote service (Wang ¶50 - Accordingly, the autonomous vehicle can cede operational controls to a remote operator in Block S154 until the autonomous vehicle passes the road segment or until autonomous control is returned to the autonomous vehicle by the remote operator) and a second business which does not affect the travel efficiency (Wang ¶57 - Block S152, which recites transmitting sensor data to a remote operator portal associated with the remote operator); and the step of assigning the service business includes the steps of: determining, when a start trigger of the first business for the object of the remote service is output, whether or not an operator already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators; and appointing, when it is determined that an operator already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators, the operator having been already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service to be an operator in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service (Wang ¶54 - For example, a remote operator can be assigned a preselected set of autonomous vehicles currently in operation with a geographic region, and the remote operator can monitor low-resolution sensor data—streamed from these autonomous vehicles when operating within the geographic region—through her remote operator portal. When the autonomous vehicle enters or approaches a road segment associated with a remote operator trigger, the autonomous vehicle can return a request for remote operator control and return high-resolution sensor data (e.g., lower compression, larger sized, and/or greater frame rate color camera data) directly to the remote operator's portal in Block S150. Accordingly, the remote operator portal can surface a sensor feed from the autonomous vehicle, enable remote controls for the autonomous vehicle, and prompt the remote operator to remotely engage the autonomous vehicle {i.e. engaging in first business}); determining, when it is determined that an operator already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators, whether or not a total number of operators already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is two or more prior to appointing the operator having been already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service to be an operator in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service; and selecting, when it is determined that the total number of operators is two or more, an operator to be placed in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service from among the two or more operators having been already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service (Wang ¶53 - Upon receipt of a request for manual assistance from the autonomous vehicle, the remote operator manager can: select a particular remote operator from a set of available remote operators; and then route sensor data—received from the autonomous vehicle in Block S152 described below—to a remote operator portal associated with the remote operator, such as via a computer network); changing, when an operator having been already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is appointed to be an operator in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service, an output condition of information to be output from a display being monitored by the operator to an output condition in order to engage in the first business for the object of the remote service (Wang ¶54 - For example, a remote operator can be assigned a preselected set of autonomous vehicles currently in operation with a geographic region, and the remote operator can monitor low-resolution sensor data—streamed from these autonomous vehicles when operating within the geographic region—through her remote operator portal. When the autonomous vehicle enters or approaches a road segment associated with a remote operator trigger, the autonomous vehicle can return a request for remote operator control and return high-resolution sensor data (e.g., lower compression, larger sized, and/or greater frame rate color camera data) directly to the remote operator's portal in Block S150. Accordingly, the remote operator portal can surface a sensor feed from the autonomous vehicle, enable remote controls for the autonomous vehicle, and prompt the remote operator to remotely engage the autonomous vehicle); and in response to the operator having been already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service being appointed to be the operator in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service, transmitting to a terminal of the operator appointed to be in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service: information which enables an operation of apparatuses related to travel of the mobile object (Wang ¶65 - In another implementation, the remote computer system assigns full manual control of an autonomous vehicle—such as including control of brake, accelerator, and steering actuators in the autonomous vehicle—to a remote operator trigger in Block S130).
Wang lacks (i) information necessary to start the first business, the information necessary to start the first business comprising a peripheral image of the mobile object.
Itsumi, from the same field of endeavor, teaches (i) information necessary to start the first business (Itsumi - The control content receiving unit 207 may receive remote control information, which is information for remotely controlling the mobile body 200, from the remote monitoring device 110), the information necessary to start the first business comprising a peripheral image of the mobile object (Itsumi - FIG. 5 shows a configuration example of the mobile body 200. The moving body 200 includes a peripheral monitoring sensor 201, a vehicle sensor 202, a vehicle control ECU (Electric Control Unit) 203, an automatic driving ECU 204, and a communication device 205. In the mobile body 200, these components are configured to be able to communicate with each other via an in-vehicle LAN (Local Area Network), CAN (Controller Area Network), and the like. The peripheral monitoring sensor 201 is a sensor that monitors the peripheral condition of the mobile body 200. Peripheral monitoring sensor 201 includes, for example, a camera, radar, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), and the like. Peripheral monitoring sensor 201 may include, for example, a plurality of cameras that capture the front, rear, right side, and left side of the vehicle).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the remote control methodology/system of Wang by including the remote monitoring control techniques of Itsumi because Itsumi discloses “In order to ensure the safety of autonomous vehicles, there is an increasing need for remote monitoring of autonomous vehicles using mobile communication and remote control in the event of an unforeseen situation (Itsumi )”. Additionally, Wang further details “a new and useful method for transferring control of an autonomous vehicle to a remote operator in the field of autonomous vehicles (Wang ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote monitoring techniques that Itsumi discloses because it would improve the safety of the system of Wang.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Wang in view of Itsumi discloses determining, when an operator having been already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is appointed to be an operator in charge of the first business for the object of the remote service, whether or not the second business in which the operator had been engaged immediately preceding an appointment includes the second business for another object of the remote service; and outputting, when it is determined that the second business for the another object of the remote service is included, a start trigger of the second business for the another object (Wang ¶69 - In one variation, the remote computer system (or the remote operator portal) identifies multiple autonomous vehicles scheduled or anticipated to approach a location of a remote operator trigger within a short period of time and then assigns a single remote operator to manually assist each of these autonomous vehicles as they sequentially traverse this location. For example, the remote computer system can group a string of five autonomous vehicles (out of eight total vehicles) in-line at an unprotected left turn and enable manual control of these vehicles to a single remote operator; the remote operator can then manually confirm execution of a left turn action for each autonomous vehicle in the group individually or for the group of autonomous vehicles as a whole).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190163176 A1) in view of Itsumi et al. (WO 2022070428 A1) further in view of Ye et al. (US 20220185299 A1)
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Wang in view of Itsumi discloses a method for managing a remote service for mobile objects (Wang ¶2 - a new and useful method for transferring control of an autonomous vehicle to a remote operator in the field of autonomous vehicles).
Wang in view of Itsumi lacks the second business includes a monitoring business of a traffic flow based on an image of an infrastructure sensor; and the step of determining whether or not an operator already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators includes the step of determining whether or not an operator already engaged in the monitoring business of the image of the infrastructure sensor which includes an image of the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators.
Ye, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the second business includes a monitoring business of a traffic flow based on an image of an infrastructure sensor (Ye Fig. 4 – Ye ¶60 - Further additionally or alternatively, any or all of the infrastructure devices can include traffic management devices (e.g., traffic sensors, traffic lights, pedestrian lights, etc.) or the like operating in the environment that may function to communicate with any or all of: other infrastructure devices (e.g., roadside units); directly with the autonomous agent regarding any or all of: data collected and/or sensed by the infrastructure device, regarding an operating state of the infrastructure device (e.g., red or green traffic light), and/or any other information; directly with a teleoperator platform {i.e. second business}; and/or can communicate in any other suitable way); and the step of determining whether or not an operator already engaged in the second business for the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators includes the step of determining whether or not an operator already engaged in the monitoring business of the image of the infrastructure sensor which includes an image of the object of the remote service is included in the plurality of operators (Ye ¶83 - The system can optionally interface with a teleoperator platform 180, which refers to one or more remote teleoperators and associated components (e.g., communication interface with autonomous agent, computing system, output devices for displaying information from autonomous agents and/or infrastructure devices to teleoperators, input devices for receiving instructions/commands from teleoperators, etc.). The teleoperator platform can function to receive inputs from teleoperators, which can be used at least partially in the determination of the curated behavioral policies for the vehicle).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the remote control methodology/system of Wang by including the autonomous vehicle control techniques of Ye because Ye discloses “the autonomous agent can augment and/or fuse data derived by an onboard sensor suite 110 (e.g., as described below) with additional observations from the infrastructure devices (e.g., the roadside units) to improve policy curation and/or trajectory determination by the autonomous agent (Ye ¶58)”. Additionally, Wang further details “a new and useful method for transferring control of an autonomous vehicle to a remote operator (Wang ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional autonomous vehicle control techniques that Ye discloses because it would improve the system of Wang by including additional sensor information when facilitating the control of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to the guidance for 35 USC § 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
The Applicant agues that the claims include significant additional items to be considered additionally more and overcome the 101 rejection within the Step 2B analysis. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As explained above, the identified additional elements (“Processors …”) are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (observe and manage remote business operations) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections on the previous Office Action, Applicant amended the independent claims by rolling in 2 dependent claims while also further limiting the claims with respect to peripheral images and controlling the vehicle. In light of this amendment, Examiner agrees that the original reference did either did not specifically cite to it and/or teach part of it, however the amendments necessitated further search and consideration. As a result of this further search and consideration, the previously cited prior art as well as new art was found to teach these limitations and is now cited (Wang and Itsumi as discussed above). As such, Applicant’s arguments (with respect to the independent claims and their respective dependent claims) are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights