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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12 – 15, regarding the 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, they have been rejected with another reference, Xiao.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings overcome the previous drawing objection.
As discussed in the interview, the 101 rejection has also been overcome.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 12 – 14 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairfield et al. (US Pub No: 2016/0370801 A1, hereinafter Fairfield) in view of Bushnell et al. (US Patent No: 4,620,066, hereinafter Bushnell) and Xiao (US Pub No: 2022/0126862 A1, hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding Claim 1:
Fairfield discloses:
A travel assist system for assisting traveling of at least one autonomous vehicle in response to at least one assistance request sent from the at least one autonomous vehicle, the travel assist system comprising. Paragraph [0102] describes assisting an autonomous vehicle using a remote human operator.
Fairfield does not disclose to assign an off-peak task to one the first group of free operators and an on-peak task in which the assistance is assigned to the second group in accordance with the priority level.
Bushnell teaches:
and a travel assist control unit comprising a computer and configured to selectively perform: an off-peak task upon receiving the at least one assistance request during an off-peak situation where there are a predetermined number of free operators included in the first group, the off-peak task being configured to assign the at least one assistance request to a selected one of the free operators included in the first group. Column 22 describes a local system operator assistance request in which the operator positions are centralized.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Fairfield to incorporate the teachings of Bushnell to show assigning an off-peak task to one the first group of free operators and an on-peak task in which the assistance is assigned to the second group in accordance with the priority level. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow an interflow of operator assistance when one set is in a peak and the other set of operators are not in a peak of requests.
Fairfield and Bushnell teach:
a plurality of terminals, each of which is configured to perform a first function and a second function. Paragraph [0102] of Fairfield describes display terminal that receives input from a remote human operator after autonomous vehicle requests assistance. Column 22 of Bushnell describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak.
the first function of each of the terminals generating, based on input information entered by at least one of first operators belonging to a first group, instruction information related to traveling of the at least one autonomous vehicle. Paragraph [0102] of Fairfield describes display terminal that receives input from a remote human operator after autonomous vehicle requests assistance. Column 22 of Bushnell describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak.
the second function of each of the terminals reporting, based on input information entered by at least one of second operators belonging to a second group, information representing a working situation of each of the first operators belonging to the first group. Paragraph [0102] of Fairfield describes display terminal that receives input from a remote human operator after autonomous vehicle requests assistance. Column 22 of Bushnell describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak.
Xiao and Bushnell teach:
and an on-peak task upon receiving the at least one assistance request during an on-peak situation where there are not the predetermined number of the free operators included in the first group, the on-peak task being configured to analyze assignment of the at least one assistance request to a selected one of the second operators included in the second group in accordance with a priority level of the at least one assistance request. Column 22 of Bushnell describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak. Paragraph [0030] of Xiao describes a priority rule to sort the tasks that should be sent to the terminal.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Fairfield and Bushnell to incorporate the teachings of Xiao to show a function of a terminal to set a priority level of the request. One would have been motivated to do so that the most urgent assistance is dealt with first.
Claims 4, 12 and 13 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 14:
Bushnell teaches:
A program product for a computer, 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 computer to serve as the travel assist control unit according to claim 1. Column 5, line 57 to column 6, line 12 describes a processor 101 and a memory 103.
The reason to combine Imai with Bushnell is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Bushnell teaches:
The travel assist system according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first and second operators who logs in to a corresponding one of the terminals is categorized into a corresponding one of the first and second groups in accordance with a predetermined standard determined for the corresponding one of the first and second operators. Column 22 describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak.
and the plurality of terminals are categorized into: instruction terminals operatable by the first operators belonging to the first group. Column 22 describes a local system operator assistance request in which the operator positions are centralized.
and management terminals operatable by the second operators belonging to the second group. Column 22 describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak.
Regarding Claim 3:
Fairfield and Bushnell teach the above inventions in claim 1. Fairfield and Bushnell do not teach a function of a terminal to set a priority level of the request.
Xiao teaches:
The travel assist system according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one assistance request comprises a plurality of assistance requests; and the second function of each of the terminals includes a function of individually setting each of the plurality of assistance requests to a priority level. Paragraph [0030] describes a terminal that receives requests and then organizes based on the priority of the request.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Fairfield and Bushnell to incorporate the teachings of Xiao to show a function of a terminal to set a priority level of the request. One would have been motivated to do so that the most urgent assistance is dealt with first.
Regarding Claim 19:
Fairfield and Bushnell teach
The travel assist system according to claim 1, wherein: one of the first operators and the second operators performs traveling assistance of the at least one autonomous vehicle. Paragraph [0102] of Fairfield describes assisting an autonomous vehicle using a remote human operator. Column 22 of Bushnell describes an operation mode during temporary peaks in which operator assistance is provided by operators that are not dealing with a peak
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 19 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 11, 15 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658