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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 27 is not present in the current claim set. To expedite prosecution, claim 27 is considered cancelled and the current numbering of those claims following claim 27 will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-26 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0037495, also citing related foreign filing EP 19189108.4).
For claim 16, Pfadler discloses a method for a remote control center for remotely operating a vehicle, comprising: obtaining information on a predicted uplink/downlink delay a communication link between the remote control center and the vehicle (see paras. 0021, 0023); providing at least one driving command to the vehicle via the communication link (see para. 0042); and adapting a range of the at least one driving command based on the information on the uplink/downlink delay (see para. 0057). Pfadler does not explicitly disclose the predicted quality of service (pQoS). However, the claimed predicted quality of service (pQoS) is interpreted to be equivalent to the uplink/downlink delay based on the definitions presented in applicant’s specification (see Substitute specification, para. 0047, submitted on 9/11/2023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the uplink/downlink delay is equivalent to the claimed predicted quality of service based on the motivation to improve a command center and for a transportation vehicle, a transportation vehicle and command center, more specifically, but not exclusively, to a concept for delay compensation in teleoperated driving (ToD) (see para. 0002).
Although the claims continue to use the term “pQoS”, the reasoning for rejecting the term will not be repeated for each usage. However, the rejection of the term is considered applicable to each usage of the term.
Referring to claim 17, Pfadler further teaches wherein the information on the pQoS comprises information on a change of the pQoS (see paras. 0021, 0023), and wherein adapting the range of the at least one driving command comprises adapting the range of the at least one driving command based on the information on the change of the pQoS (see paras. 0057, 0062).
Regarding claim 18, Pfadler further teaches wherein the information on the pQoS comprises a time interval in which the pQoS of the communication link falls below a configured level (see paras. 0030-0031, 0060-0061, Fig. 5), and wherein adapting the range of the at least one driving command comprises adapting the range of the at least one driving command based on the time interval to maneuver the vehicle throughout the interval based on the at least one driving command (see paras. 0062-0064).
With reference to claim 19, Pfadler further discloses wherein the interval further comprises an area in which the pQoS of the communication link falls short of the configured level (see paras. 0030-0031, 0060-0061, Fig. 5).
Referring to claim 20, Pfadler further teaches obtaining, based on the information on the pQoS, information on a traffic situation in the interval (see para. 0126, 0029, other AVs); and adapting the at least one driving command based on the information on the traffic situation (see para. 0029).
With regards to claim 21, Pfadler further discloses wherein the at least one driving command comprises data indicating a trajectory of the vehicle (ese para. 0059), and wherein adapting the range of the driving command comprises adapting the trajectory based on the information on the pQoS (see para. 0100).
For claim 22, Pfadler further discloses wherein the at least one driving command comprises data indicating a number of waypoints for the vehicle (see para. 0100, trajectory contains points), and wherein adapting the range of the driving command comprises adapting the number of waypoints and/or a distance between the waypoints (see para. 0100, changing trajectory changes distance between waypoints).
Referring to claim 23, Pfadler further teaches wherein the at least one driving command comprises data indicating modifications of an environmental model according to which the vehicle maneuvers at least partially automatically (see para. 0064). Pfadler does not explicitly disclose the next limitation. However, as Pfadler teaches that commands are adapted based on the delay in transmission, it is well known that the vehicle will be moving during this time that delays are occurring. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to adapt the look-ahead horizon because of the dynamic movement of the vehicle and based on the motivation to improve a command center and for a transportation vehicle, a transportation vehicle and command center, more specifically, but not exclusively, to a concept for delay compensation in teleoperated driving (ToD) (see para. 0002).
With regards to claim 24, Pfadler further teaches adapting a timing for providing the at least one driving command, based on the information of the pQoS (see para. 0131).
For claim 25, Pfadler further discloses wherein the timing depends on a time for emitting the at least one driving command to the vehicle (see paras. 0030-0031, 0060-0061, Fig. 5), and wherein adapting the timing of the driving command comprises adapting the time for emitting the at least one driving command based on the information on the pQoS (see paras. 0030-0031, 0060-0061, Fig. 5).
With reference to claim 26, Pfadler further discloses providing at least one preceding driving command to the vehicle via the communication link (see paras. 0094, 0126); and adapting a range of the at least one preceding driving command based on the information on the pQoS (see para. 0094).
Referring to claim 28, Pfadler further teaches providing at least one subsequent driving command to the vehicle via the communication link (see para. 0126); and adapting a range of the at least one subsequent driving command based on the information on the pQoS (see para. 0126).
For claim 29, Pfadler discloses an interface for communication and a data processing circuit (see Fig. 3). The remaining elements substantially mirror the elements of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 29 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
With regards to claim 30, Pfadler further teaches wherein the information on the pQoS comprises one of: (i) information on a change of the pQoS, and wherein the data processing circuit and the one or more interfaces are configured to adapt the range of the at least one driving command by adapting the range of the at least one driving command based on the information on the change of the pQoS, or (ii) a time interval in which the pQoS of the communication link falls below a configured level, and wherein the data processing circuit and the one or more interfaces are configured to adapt the range of the at least one driving command by adapting the range of the at least one driving command based on the time interval to maneuver the vehicle throughout the interval based on the at least one driving command (see paras. 0021, 0023, 0057, 0062).
With reference to claim 31, it is considered non-invoked. The embodiment having prior art applied in claim 30 is different from the embodiment defined in claim 31. Accordingly, prior art is not applicable to this claim based on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle. Claim 31 is rejected based on its dependency to claim 30.
For claim 32, the claimed elements substantially mirror the elements of claim 20. Accordingly, claim 32 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning presented above for claim 20.
For claim 33, the claimed elements substantially mirror the elements of claims 21, 22 and 23. Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning presented above for claims 21, 22 or 23.
For claim 34, the claimed elements substantially mirror the elements of claims 24 and 25. Accordingly, claim 34 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning presented above for claims 24 and 25.
For claim 35, the elements and subject matter defined substantially mirror the elements of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 35 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663