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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Respond to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 16 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1 – 2, 7 – 8, 14 are amended.
Claim 4, 11, 17 – 18 are canceled.
Respond to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant stated in page 10 that “None of these paragraphs teaches, as required by the claim limitation, sending control data and trigger start and stop times or trigger start and stop positions to the vehicle.” Examiner note that the new ground of rejection is base on the combination of Jornod et al., US20210255617 and Ahmed in which Jornod teaches automatic switching between direct/indirect control based on the predicted QoS, Ahmed teaches the prediction of insufficient data communication area/section on its route and instruct vehicle to perform alternative operation within the area/section. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitation. For further detail, reference to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 section.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
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.
Such claim limitation is:
“an analyzing module configured to” in Claim 7. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at page 12 of the instant application which “may likewise be fully or partially combined into a single unit or implemented as software running on a processor, e.g. a CPU or a GPU.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 10 and 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jornod et al., (hereinafter Jornod), US20210255617 in view of Ahmed et al., (hereinafter Ahmed), US20210231447.
Regarding Claim 1, Jornod discloses: A method for performing a tele-operated driving session for a vehicle equipped with an automated driving function, the method comprising: analyzing a predictive quality of service (PQoS) for a communication between the vehicle and a control center for a route (0035 “determining a quality of service prediction for the communication between the transportation vehicle and the control center computer for the time when the ToD session should be invoked”;) driven in a tele-operated driving session (0021, Tele-operated driving (ToD); 0048, “same concept could … applied for sections of the full ToD session. This then means that the future QoS is divided in smaller time intervals, and the transmitted data type and type of control may be changed for each interval.”; i.e., within a ToD session, predict QoS for each sections on the route. );
determining a section of the route for which an indirect control shall be utilized based on the analysis of the predictive quality of service (PQoS), wherein high-level commands are utilized during indirect control, the high-level commands comprising one or more of waypoints relating to the section, modifications of an environmental model, and trajectories relating to the section (refer to the mapping above and 0036, “two types of ToD session driving controls existing, direct control where the operator in the control center is using a remote steering wheel and a throttle and braking paddle“, ”The other form of control is an indirect control where … waypoints are submitted to the transportation vehicle lying on a trajectory along which the transportation vehicle shall drive to get out of the blocking situation. The autonomous driving function gets the waypoints and drives”);
determining control data to be utilized by the vehicle in the determined section of the route based on the high-level command (refer to the mapping above & 0035, “selecting the type of data to be exchanged with the control center computer during the ToD session based on the QoS prediction”;);
initiating a tele-operated driving session with direct control of the vehicle, in which steering and throttle of the vehicle are controlled by a tele-operated driving operator (refer to the mapping above, direct control is used as one of the type of ToD based the predicted QoS);
switching the tele-operated driving session from direct control to indirect control when the vehicle reaches the beginning of the section of the route with indirect control; and switching the tele-operated driving session from indirect control to direct control when the vehicle reaches an end of the section of the route with indirect control (refer to the mapping above & 0048, the system switch different type of data and different type of control during ToD session based on the QoS).
Jornod do not explicitly teach:
sending the control data and pre-determined trigger start and stop times or pre-determined trigger start and stop positions to the vehicle before the vehicle reaches a beginning of the section of the route with indirect control
Ahmed, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
sending the control data and pre-determined trigger start and stop times or pre-determined trigger start and stop positions to the vehicle before the vehicle reaches a beginning of the section of the route with indirect control (0002, “A remote-controlled vehicle may be controlled for driving the vehicle along a path or road”; 0031 – 0038, “detecting may comprise determining a forecast of when the at least one deficient radio access point will not fulfil said requirements of the communication”, “in response to the detecting, instructs the vehicle 160 to adapt its behaviour based on said detecting”, “passing and connecting to any deficient access point which would otherwise degrade … the communication with the vehicle manager 150”, “adapting the vehicle's behaviour comprises at least one of: … revert to autonomous mode”; 0043, “The above procedure may be particularly advantageous to employ in areas with insufficient or ‘spotty’ radio coverage and/or interference or even in cases of service breakdowns or high load conditions”; Ahmed teaches a system that plans/forecasts/predicts QoS on its route and instruct vehicle to take alternative action for traveling within the areas of insufficient data coverage. The alternative action may include continue its route by autonomous driving through the end of the data insufficient area. The combination of Jornod and Ahmed renders obviousness of the claimed limitation.)
Jornod and Ahmed both teach method of teleoperated vehicle control under inconsistent communication link and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the QoS forecast/prediction taught by Ahmed in the system Jornod to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to ”improved availability, reliability and safety of the remote-controlled vehicle” (Ahmed, 0010).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Jornod and Ahmed renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: the section of the route for which an indirect control shall be utilized is determined by detecting a drop of the predictive quality of service (PQoS) below a threshold (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 and Jornod, 0035 – 0036, “The other form of control is an indirect control where the control center computer does not send live control commands … Instead, waypoints are submitted to the transportation vehicle lying on a trajectory along which the transportation vehicle shall drive to get out of the blocking situation”; i.e., the indirect control is for the situation with lower QoS ).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Jornod and Ahmed renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: the predictive quality of service (PQoS) is provided by the vehicle or by a communication network (Jornod, 0079 – 0080 “sensor based QoS prediction”; in addition, Ahmed, 0034, “cloud, network utilization, and Quality of Experience (QoE) of the communication”; i.e., the QoS can be predicted by vehicle sensor or by information collected from the communication network).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Jornod and Ahmed renders obviousness of all the limitation in Claim 1. The combination further teach: a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions, which, executed by a computer (Jornod, 0053, “read only memory (ROM) for storing software (non-transitory storage medium comprising instruction)”; the software are to be executed by computer ).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is the method corresponding system claim of Claim 1. Ahmed further teach: an analyzing module (refer to the mapping in Claim 6, the software and computer that predict/analyze the QoS is the analyzing module); a communication interface (Jornod, 0081, “LTE or 5G mobile communication or for the WLAN” );
Claim 8 is a method claim that recites all the limitation of Claim 1 except “requesting a tele-operated driving session”. Jornod further teach: requesting a tele-operated driving session (Jornod, 0080, “transmitted the request message for a ToD session”). Claim 8 is rejected with the same reason.
Regarding Claim 9 – 10 these are the corresponding method claim of Claim 2 – 3. These claims are rejected with the same reasons.
Claim 13 is the corresponding non-transitory storage medium claim of Claim 8 and thus rejected with same reason.
Claim 14 is the corresponding system claim of Claim 8 and thus rejected with same reason.
Claim 15 is the corresponding vehicle claim of Claim 14 and thus rejected with same reason.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites all the limitation of Claim3 but depending on Claim 2. Since the combination of Jornod and Ahmed renders obviousness all the limitation of Claim 2 and 3, the combination also renders obviousness of all the limitation of Clam 16. Claim 16 is rejected with the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Patel et al., US20190049948, which teaches a method for switching between autonomous control and remote operator control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HITESH PATEL can be reached on 571-270-5227. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/25/26