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 response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/04/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 9, 11 and 17-20. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the objection to the specification, Applicant’s substitute specification filed on 12/04/2025 obviates said objection — accordingly, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/04/2025 obviate said objections — accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f) and associated rejections under §§ 112(a),(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/04/2025 obviate said issues — accordingly, the foregoing are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to the Step 2A, Prong One analysis of claim 1, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claim is directed to an invention that cannot be performed entirely in a human’s mind. (See Remarks, p. 10.) Applicant argues that the invention of claim 1 directly affects remote control of a vehicle by generating driving commands and automatically transmitting those driving commands to the vehicle, and that a human mind would be unable to remotely control a vehicle or transmit remote driving commands to the vehicle without assistance from a computing device. (See id.) Applicant argues that the complexities of the invention — e.g., processing high volume, complex sensor data while in velocity — showcase that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind. (See Remarks, p. 11.)
As to the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, Applicant argues that the claim provides an improvement in technology by enhancing vehicular control technology, thereby integrating the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application (See Remarks, pp. 12-13.)
As to the Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues that the invention provides an inventive concept as the invention provides improvements made over the prior art, thereby illustrating a distinct and unconventional combination of features representing a clear inventive concept.
Regarding the Step 2A, Prong One argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Step 2A, Prong One asks whether a judicial exception is recited. The following limitations of claim 1 recite judicial exceptions: “based on the received sensor information, determining that the sensor information is insufficient to perform the remote driving task,” and “applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information to generate driving commands to complete the remote driving task.” The foregoing limitations constitute mental processes for the following reasons:
The broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) of the “determining” and “generating” steps encompass performing evaluations over obtained data to arrive at a final judgment. A human mind is capable of evaluating sensor information to determine suitability for performing a remote driving tasks, and in a similar manner a human mind is capable of evaluating sensor information (including supplemental information) to determine (generate) suitable driving commands (e.g., steer, accelerate, etc.). The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
The BRI of the “apply” step encompasses generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle. (See at least Applicant’s claim 3 which limits the “apply” limitation to this interpretation.) The foregoing is a process which can be performed by the human mind because a human mind is capable of generating a view of a vehicle’s environment given sufficient information. (See ibid.)
Now, Examiner acknowledges that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III)(A).) However, “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” (Ibid.) As shown above, the claim recites observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions which can be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process.
Addressing Applicant’s assertions that the claim sets out remote driving, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of “wherein the sensor information is to be used to complete a remote driving task” and “generate driving commands to complete the remote driving task” appears to constitute: (1) an intended use of the claim in the sense that the language suggests but does not require the step to be performed, hence constituting language which does not limit claim scope (See MPEP 2111.04.); and (2) a mere general linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application — such analysis comes into play at Step 2A, Prong Two. (See MPEP 2106.05(h).) Thus, the claim does not positively recite a form of vehicle control requiring positive actuation of structure, but rather recites mental processes without significantly more.
Now turning to the Step 2A, Prong Two argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim puts forward an improvement in technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. (See MPEP 2106.05(a) II.) Furthermore, “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.” (Ibid.) Contrary to providing an improvement in technology, the claim merely uses instructions to perform mental processes through generic computing components (i.e., a processor and a memory), and at most the claim merely improves upon an abstract idea (e.g., improving upon determining what additional sensor data is required). And it is important to stress that, as explained above, the claim’s references to remote driving are a mere general link of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(h).) Therefore, the claim does not put forth an improvement in technology.
Regarding the Step 2B, Prong Two argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees as 102/103 prior art analysis has no bearing on 101 analysis — hence, these arguments are moot in terms of 101 analysis. Indeed, the MPEP guides, “The ‘‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.’” (Emphasis in original, MPEP 2106.05)) Moving on, the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements of the claim amount to insignificant extra-solution activity which are activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim — the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Note: Examiner would like to turn Applicant’s attention to claims 7, 15 and 17, which are patent eligible as they recite a form of vehicle control which necessarily actuates structure. That is, the step of “executing the remote driving task” necessarily requires actuating vehicular components to remotely maneuver a vehicle. Amending independent claims 1 and 11 in a similar manner may obviate the 101 rejections pending further consideration.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues against the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1.
Addressing the propriety of the rejection, Applicant argues that the rejection is based on improper hindsight reconstruction, and that the Office Action only merely asserts that the modification of Patel with Zeng is obvious without any supporting analysis or disclosure. Applicant argues that the Office Actions sets forth an “improper official notice” by supposedly failing to provide evidentiary support or a reasoned explanation grounded in the cited references to reject the claims.
Addressing the cited prior art, Applicant argues that the amended limitation of “the sensor information is to be used to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task” distinguishes from the prior art. Applicant asserts that the limitation distinguishes because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention through the combination of Patel and Zhang as the combination would provide fused data configured for a wholly different application. That is, Zeng’s fused data is configured to form a full 360° vehicle object map surrounding a host vehicle to enhance a vehicle’s general sensing and awareness. (See Remarks, pp. 16-17 and Zeng, ¶¶ 3-4 and 22.) Applicant argues that an awareness and position of remote vehicles does not equate to a capacity for a remote vehicle to complete remote driving tasks.
Regarding the propriety argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection explicitly provides analysis which follows the KSR rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results — this rationale is explicitly outlined by the MPEP as a proper rationale upon which a claim may be rejected under § 103. (See MPEP § 2143, I., A.) The rejection resolved the requisite Graham inquires based on analysis rooted in the cited references of Patel and Zeng. Therefore, the § 103 rejection of claim 1 establishes a proper rejection under § 103. Additionally, Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s assertion that the claim utilized improper hindsight reconstruction is conclusory and is contradicted by Office Action’s prior art analysis.
Regarding the prior art argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Patel discloses the BRI of the claim limitation at issue: receiving sensor information from the vehicle, wherein the sensor information is to be used to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task (“The vehicle operation system can simulate or recreate the environment surrounding the vehicle for the remote operator using sensor information (e.g., such as from a radar, a LIDAR, an inertial motion unit (IMU), an encoder, an ultrasonic sensor, a proximity sensor, a camera, a lane sensor, or a self-reporting/detecting circuitry for errors and/or set points in components or subsystems, etc.) from the vehicle. The remote operator can analyze the environment using the communicated information, and can input driving commands or instructions (e.g., using a controller, a button, a wheel, a pedal, a computer interface, or a combination thereof).” ¶ 20.). Critically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from Patel that a full map around a vehicle is useful for remote driving tasks as such gives a remote operator a more complete view of a target vehicle’s environment. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Zeng’s fused data would be useful for Patel’s remote driving as such would aid in forming a full 360° vehicle object map surrounding a host vehicle; such enhances Patel’s “environment surrounding the vehicle” by increasing the accuracy of such, thereby providing a remote operator a more holistic view of a surrounding environment of a vehicle. Therefore, with a reasonable expectation of success one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Patel with Zeng to achieve the predictable effect of providing an enhanced surrounding environment of a vehicle to a remote operator.
Accordingly, the § 103 rejections are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claims 1 and 11.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Claim 11: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claims 1 and 11 are provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A method for augmenting a sensor view of a vehicle, comprising:
receiving sensor information from the vehicle, wherein the sensor information is to be used to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task;
based on the received sensor information, determining that the sensor information is insufficient to enable performance of the remote driving task;
obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle; and
applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information to generate driving commands to complete the remote driving task and automatically transmit the generated driving commands to the vehicle.
11. A system for augmenting a sensor view of a vehicle, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive sensor information from the vehicle, wherein the sensor information is to be used to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task;
based on the received sensor information, determine that the sensor information is insufficient to enable performance of the remote driving task;
direct one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle in a position to generate supplemental sensor information;
obtain the supplemental sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle; and
apply the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information to generate driving commands to complete the remote driving task and automatically transmit the generated driving commands to the vehicle.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitations pertaining to performing determinations and applying sensor information in regards to a task are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. The bolded limitations constitute mental processes for the following reasons:
The broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) of the “determining” and “generating” steps encompass performing evaluations over obtained data to arrive at a final judgment. A human mind is capable of evaluating sensor information to determine suitability for performing a remote driving tasks, and in a similar manner a human mind is capable of evaluating sensor information (including supplemental information) to determine (generate) suitable driving commands (e.g., steer, accelerate, etc.). The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
The BRI of the “apply” step encompasses generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle. (See at least Applicant’s claim 3 which limits the “apply” limitation to this interpretation.) The foregoing is a process which can be performed by the human mind because a human mind is capable of generating a view of a vehicle’s environment given sufficient information. (See ibid.)
As a result, the bolded limitations respectively represent a mental process. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components — i.e., a processor and a memory — that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
receiving sensor information from the vehicle, and
obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles; or
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
connecting with one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle,
direct one or more surrounding vehicles in a position to generate supplemental sensor information, and
Note: The foregoing constitutes an insignificant post-solution activity because the BRI of this limitation encompasses merely communicating a signal(s) to one or more surrounding vehicles with directions. The claim does not explicitly carry out vehicle control of the surrounding vehicles.
Automatically transmit generated driving commands to the vehicle.
Claims 2–6 and 8–10 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
performing further determinations,
generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle, and
simulate an environment of the vehicle;
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
requesting needed sensor information,
receiving sensor information and supplemental sensor information,
directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position,
receiving a request for operation assistance,
communicating cooperative maneuvers, and
relay maneuver-related messages.
Claims 12–14 and 16 depend from claim 11 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible for similar reasons as claims 2, 3, 6 and 8, respectively.
Claims 1–6, 8–14 and 16 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1–6, 8–14 and 16 are rejected under § 101.
Patent-eligible subject matter
Claims 7, 15 and 17 are patent eligible as they recite a form of vehicle control which necessarily actuates structure. That is, “executing the remote driving task” necessarily requires actuating vehicular components to remotely maneuver a vehicle.
Claims 18–20 are patent eligible for at least their dependency on claim 17.
Examiner notes that amending independent claims 1 and 11 in a similar manner may obviate the 101 rejections pending further consideration.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 17 and 19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US20190049948A1; “Patel”) in view of Zeng et al. (US20100198513A1; “Zeng”).
As to claim 1, Patel discloses:
receiving sensor information from the vehicle, wherein the sensor information is to be sued to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task (“The vehicle operation system can simulate or recreate the environment surrounding the vehicle for the remote operator using sensor information (e.g., such as from a radar, a LIDAR, an inertial motion unit (IMU), an encoder, an ultrasonic sensor, a proximity sensor, a camera, a lane sensor, or a self-reporting/detecting circuitry for errors and/or set points in components or subsystems, etc.) from the vehicle. The remote operator can analyze the environment using the communicated information, and can input driving commands or instructions (e.g., using a controller, a button, a wheel, a pedal, a computer interface, or a combination thereof).” ¶ 20.);
based on the received sensor information, determining that the sensor information is insufficient to enable performance of the remote driving task (“The pass/fail criteria [for performing remote driving] can be based on conditions associated with the teleoperation trigger type 310 of FIG. 3, such as sensor blindness.” ¶ 73.); and
applying the sensor information of the vehicle to generate driving commands to complete the remote driving task and automatically transmit the generated driving commands to the vehicle (“The remote operator can analyze the environment using the communicated information, and can input driving commands or instructions (e.g., using a controller, a button, a wheel, a pedal, a computer interface, or a combination thereof). The vehicle operation system can communicate the commands or instructions to the vehicle and implement them at the vehicle.” ¶ 20.).
Patel fails to explicitly disclose: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle (“Remote vehicle 30 includes both V2V communication and object detection sensing devices. Remote vehicle 30 detects remote vehicle 28 using its object detection sensors and transmits an estimated position of remote vehicle 30 as well as its own GPS position to host vehicle 10 via the V2V communication system. As a result, fusing the V2V communication data and objects detected by the host vehicle 10 may construct a 360 degree vehicle object map surrounding the host vehicle 10.” ¶ 22.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patel to include the features of: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle, as taught by Zeng, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for accurately assessing a vehicle’s location and conditions with respect to surrounding vehicles. (See Zeng, ¶ 3.)
The combination of Patel and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: applying supplemental sensor information to complete the remote driving task. However, the claim limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before or at the filing date of the invention. Namely, it would have been obvious to combine the prior art elements of Patel and Zeng — i.e., sensor information of a vehicle and supplemental sensor information, respectively — according to known methods to yield predictable results. (See MPEP § 2143, I., A.) The following are the Graham factual inquiries and their respective resolutions:
a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
Patel uses sensor information of a vehicle to represent a vehicle’s environment for use in remote operation. Zeng uses supplemental sensor information to represent a vehicle’s environment. Here, the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a single reference using both sensor information and supplemental sensor information to represent a vehicle’s environment in the context of remote operation.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it is well-known in the art that sensor data from various sources may be accumulated and/or fused to perform vehicle control functions. In combination, Patel and Zeng perform the same function of providing their respective sensor data for the ultimate purpose of representing a vehicle’s environment.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Patel and Zeng would be predictable with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that sensor data from various sources may be accumulated and/or fused to successfully perform vehicle control functions.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from the above disclosures of Patel that a full map around a vehicle is useful for remote driving tasks as such gives a remote operator a more complete view of a target vehicle’s environment. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Zeng’s fused data would be useful for Patel’s remote driving as such would aid in forming a full 360° vehicle object map surrounding a host vehicle; such enhances Patel’s “environment surrounding the vehicle” by increasing the accuracy of such, thereby providing a remote operator a more holistic view of a surrounding environment of a vehicle. Therefore, with a reasonable expectation of success one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Patel with Zeng to achieve the predictable effect of providing an enhanced surrounding environment of a vehicle to a remote operator.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is obvious in view of Patel and Zeng.
As to claims 3 and 19, Patel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information comprises generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle
Nevertheless, Zeng teaches: wherein applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information comprises generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle (“Remote vehicle 30 includes both V2V communication and object detection sensing devices. Remote vehicle 30 detects remote vehicle 28 using its object detection sensors and transmits an estimated position of remote vehicle 30 as well as its own GPS position to host vehicle 10 via the V2V communication system. As a result, fusing the V2V communication data and objects detected by the host vehicle 10 may construct a 360 degree vehicle object map surrounding the host vehicle 10.” ¶ 22.)
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles; and wherein applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information comprises generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patel to include the features of: wherein applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information comprises generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle, as taught by Zeng, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for accurately assessing a vehicle’s location and conditions with respect to surrounding vehicles. (See Zeng, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 4, Patel discloses: wherein the sensor information of the vehicle is transmitted to a remote operator station to simulate an environment of the vehicle (“The vehicle operation system can simulate or recreate the environment surrounding the vehicle for the remote operator using sensor information (e.g., such as from a radar, a LIDAR, an inertial motion unit (IMU), an encoder, an ultrasonic sensor, a proximity sensor, a camera, a lane sensor, or a self-reporting/detecting circuitry for errors and/or set points in components or subsystems, etc.) from the vehicle.” ¶ 20.).
While the combination of Patel and Zeng does not explicitly disclose performing the above with supplemental sensor information, the claim limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, it would have been obvious to combine the prior art elements of Patel and Zeng — i.e., sensor information of a vehicle and supplemental sensor information, respectively — according to known methods to yield predictable results. Examiner submits that the same Graham inquires resolved for claim 1 apply here as well.
As to claim 6, Patel discloses: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation (“The automated driving system can determine the vehicle processing results 126 that conflict with each other (e.g., recognizing a person in the middle of the travel lane, a preceding car crossing the center line in violation of the operating rules and contrary to a ‘STOP’ sign detected near the road, etc.). The automated driving system can use the conflicting results … as the trigger for the handover [for remote driving].” ¶ 31. “After the handover, the teleoperation process can be implemented where the autonomous vehicle 102 operates in response to the remote operator 108.” ¶ 32. Examiner Note: Summarizing, the remote operator ultimately performs a safety operation by safely operating a vehicle to avoid a conflicting result which could result in an unsafe outcome (e.g., collision).).
As to claim 7, Patel discloses: wherein completing the remote driving task comprises taking remote control of the vehicle from a remote operator station and executing the remote driving task (“After the handover, the teleoperation process can be implemented where the autonomous vehicle 102 operates in response to the remote operator 108.” ¶ 32.).
As to claim 8, Patel discloses: receiving a request from the vehicle for operation assistance (“The automated driving system can communicate a handover request 322 (e.g., a message from the autonomous vehicle to initiate the handover process) to the teleoperation center 106 based on identifying the trigger.” ¶ 54.).
Independent claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 7 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Mueck et al. (US20190130754A1; “Mueck”).
As to claims 2 and 18, the combination of Patel and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose:
determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task; and
requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles.
Nevertheless, Mueck teaches:
determining what sensor information is needed for performing a driving task (“If … the sensor data is deemed insufficient [for detecting a danger to a vehicle], then additional sensor data may be requested from surrounding vehicles.” ¶ 76.); and
requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles (“If … the sensor data is deemed insufficient [for detecting a danger to a vehicle], then additional sensor data may be requested from surrounding vehicles.” ¶ 76.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Mueck teaches: requesting needed sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel and Zeng to include the features of: determining what sensor information is needed to perform a driving task; and requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles, as taught by Mueck to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing supplied sensor data may assist a vehicle in avoiding collision. (See at least Mueck, ¶¶ 40–41.)
Claims 5, 11–16 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Urano et al. (US20210109515A1; “Urano”) and in view of Mohammed et al. (US20240056554A1; “Mohammed”)
As to claims 5 and 20, the combination of Patel and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task.
Nevertheless, Urano teaches: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task (“The sensor type determination unit 35 may determine the type of the sensor 22a that can detect appropriate information when the remote commander R issues the remote instruction as the type of the sensor 22a, based on the external environment or the map information. Here, the appropriate information when the remote commander R issues the remote instruction may be information in which the remote commander R can easily recognize the situation around the remote autonomous driving vehicle 2.” ¶ 56.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Urano teaches: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel and Zeng to include the feature of: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task, as taught by Urano, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for supplying appropriate information to a remote operator to easily recognize a situation around a remote vehicle. (See Urano, ¶ 56.)
The combination of Patel, Zeng and Urano fails to explicitly disclose: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Urano teaches: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task. Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel, Zeng and Urano to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control.
Independent claim 11 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 5 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, respectively, as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Lenser et al. (US20080027591A1; “Lenser”) and in view of Mohammed.
As to claim 9, the combination of Patel and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: wherein connecting with the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle comprises communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform to obtain the supplemental sensor information .
Nevertheless, Lenser teaches: communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform (“The operator control unit sends commands to the remote vehicles to perform autonomous behaviors in a cooperative effort, such that high-level mission commands entered by the operator cause the remote vehicles to perform more than one autonomous behavior sequentially or concurrently.” Abstract.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Lenser teaches: communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel and Zeng to include the feature of: communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform, as taught by Lenser, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for controlling multiple vehicles in a coordinated manner, thereby enhancing vehicle control.
The combination of Patel, Zeng and Lenser fails to explicitly disclose: the one or more surrounding vehicles obtaining supplemental sensor information.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Lenser teaches: communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform. Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel, Zeng and Lenser to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to perform a simple substitution of Lenser’s autonomous behaviors with Mohammed’s directing of vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success because Mohammed’s teaching is a form of autonomous driving behavior.
Claim 10 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Lekutai (US20220277653A1) and in view of Mohammed.
As to claim 10, the combination of Patel and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle to obtain the sensor information.
Nevertheless, Lekutai teaches: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle (“A lead vehicle may be assigned to each respective group of vehicles, such that the lead vehicle may receive driving instructions from a remote system and relay those driving instructions to other vehicles in the group of vehicles.” ¶ 3.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Lekutai teaches: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel and Zeng to include the feature of: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle, as taught by Lekutai, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for controlling multiple vehicles in a coordinated manner, thereby enhancing vehicle control.
The combination of Patel, Zeng and Lekutai fails to explicitly disclose: the one or more surrounding vehicles obtaining supplemental sensor information.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
Patel discloses: applying sensor information of a vehicle to complete a remote driving task, wherein it may be determined that sensor data is insufficient to perform the remote driving task. Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles. Lekutai teaches: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle. Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patel, Zeng and Lekutai to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to perform a simple substitution of Lekutai’s relayed control commands with Mohammed’s directing of vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success because Mohammed’s teaching is a form of autonomous driving behavior.
CONCLUSION
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668