DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
The present application’s priority under Provisional US Application Number 63/464,470 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Examiner recommends adding a reference to remote operations or teleoperations.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: missing comma after “The [method/platform/apparatus] of claim ##”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? No, or Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim language below:
A method comprising:
obtaining a first supervisory request from a first vehicle, the supervisory request being a request to monitor the first vehicle;
determining whether to determine a priority level for the first supervisory request;
when it is determined that the priority level for the first supervisory request is not to be determined, processing the first supervisory request, wherein the first supervisory request is processed by a teleoperations monitor arrangement;
when it is determined that the priority level for the first supervisory request is to be determined, determining a first priority for the first supervisory request;
after determining the first priority, adding the first supervisory request to a queue according to the first priority, the queue including at least a second supervisory request having a second priority; and
determining whether the first priority is higher than the second priority, wherein when it is determined that the first priority is higher than the second priority, processing the first supervisory request before the second supervisory request, the first supervisory request being obtained from the queue by the teleoperations monitor arrangement and processed by the teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein processing the first supervisory request includes determining whether the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement.
The Process in claim 1, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining whether to determine a priority level, processing a request, determining a priority, adding a request to a queue, and determining whether a vehicle is to be remotely operated. This is equivalent to, for a person riding in a vehicle or in a position outside the vehicle where he can see the vehicle, having obtained a new supervisory request, determining if the person has already received a previous supervisory request. If the person has not received a previous supervisory request, affirm that the vehicle associated with the new request should be remotely operated. If the person has already received a previous request, determine a priority level for the new request and add it to a queue with the previous request based on priority level. A high priority level could be assigned to requests based on the traffic situation of the vehicle, such as if there were pedestrians present near the vehicle. Next, the person would determine, in order of priority, if a request warrants remote operation.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements, underlined above, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “obtaining a first supervisory request from a first vehicle …” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, Claims 2-20:
fall within one of the statutory categories (Claims 2-7: Process; Claims 8-20: Machine)
directed toward an abstract idea (Mental Process),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that Claims 2-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public
use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goldman et al. (US 20240036571 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Goldman teaches A method comprising:
obtaining a first supervisory request (see at least FIG. 1 step 114: “receive a request for providing assistance to the vehicle”) from a first vehicle (see at least FIG. 3: vehicle A 302(a)), the supervisory request being a request to monitor the first vehicle;
determining whether to determine a priority level (see at least [0025]: “In some examples, the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on a time at which the requests are received, a priority”; [0025]: “multiple request queues may be implemented simultaneously with an individual queue having differing criteria for ordering inbound requests and different sets of operators to service those requests.”) for the first supervisory request;
when it is determined that the priority level for the first supervisory request is not (see at least [0025]: “the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on a time at which the requests are received”) to be determined, processing the first supervisory request (see at least FIG. 1 step 126: “determine an action to provide assistance to the vehicle”), wherein the first supervisory request is processed by a teleoperations monitor arrangement (see at least FIG. 2: remote operation system 112);
when it is determined that the priority level for the first supervisory request is (see at least [0025]: “In some examples, the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on … a priority”) to be determined, determining a first priority (see at least [0015]: “alternatively, the requests may be prioritized based on certain safety considerations, such as a vehicle operating speed (e.g., highway operation versus city street operation), occupancy status of the vehicle (occupied or vacant, number of occupants, etc.), length of ride, traffic volume, or other factors.”) for the first supervisory request;
after determining the first priority, adding the first supervisory request to a queue (see at least [0015]: “the requests may be ordered within a queue”) according to the first priority, the queue including at least a second supervisory request (see at least [0025]: “The request queue serves to organize requests in response to the vehicle 102 … asking for assistance.”) having a second priority; and
determining whether the first priority is higher than the second priority, wherein when it is determined that the first priority is higher than the second priority, processing the first supervisory request before (see at least [0064]: “The queue interface 248 may process the requests for selecting one or more remote operators, e.g., by removing the highest priority … requests from the queue and identifying those remote operators … to respond to the requests”) the second supervisory request, the first supervisory request being obtained from the queue by the teleoperations monitor arrangement and processed by the teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein processing the first supervisory request includes determining whether the first vehicle is to be remotely operated (see at least FIG. 1, [0030]: “at 126, the remote operator 108 may determine an action 128 that provides assistance to the vehicle 102, such as maneuvering around the construction zone 124. In some examples, the remote operator 108 may provide the vehicle 102 with guidance to avoid, maneuver around, or pass through events.”) by the teleoperations operator arrangement.
Regarding Claim 2, Goldman teaches The method of claim 1
wherein processing the first supervisory request further includes determining whether (see at least [0087]: “As part of controlling the vehicle, the remote operation system 112 may transmit a request to have the vehicle switch to manual. In some examples, the switch may be rejected, for example in a case where a remote operator is identified and accepts a request, however, the vehicle has already resolved the situation and no longer requests assistance.”) the first vehicle is to operate autonomously.
Regarding Claim 3, Goldman teaches The method of claim 1
further including: obtaining the second supervisory request from the first vehicle before (see at least [0026]: “the vehicle 102 may encounter different events that result in a request for remote operator input at or around the same time. In such examples, remote operation system 112 may receive requests for assistance from the vehicles 102.) obtaining the first supervisory request from the first vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4, Goldman teaches The method of claim 3
wherein the queue further includes a third supervisory request, the third supervisory request being associated with a second vehicle (see at least FIG. 3: vehicle B 902(B); [0025]: “The request queue serves to organize requests in response to the vehicle 102, as well as other vehicles, asking for assistance).
Regarding Claim 7, Goldman teaches The method of claim 1
wherein when it is determined that the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement, the method further includes:
adding an indication (see at least FIG. 4 step 416: “send a first indication of the request to a first device of the first remote operator”) of the first vehicle to a teleoperations operator queue; and
providing a notification (see at least [0030]: “the remote operator 108 may determine an action 128 that provides assistance to the vehicle 102, such as maneuvering around the construction zone 124. … Additionally … the remote operator 108 may communicate with passengers of the vehicle 102”) to the first vehicle that the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement.
Regarding Claim 8, Goldman teaches A platform (see at least FIG. 2: architecture 200) comprising:
at least a first vehicle (see at least FIG. 3: vehicle A 302(a)); and
an apparatus (see at least FIG. 2: remote operation system 112), the apparatus including one or more processors (see at least FIG. 2: processors 234), and one or more memory resources (see at least FIG. 2: memory 236) storing logic that, when executed by the one or more processors, is operable to cause the platform to (see at least FIG. 2, [0058]: “Memory 218 and 236 can store an operating system and one or more software applications, instructions, programs, and/or data to implement the methods described herein”)
obtain a first supervisory request (see at least FIG. 1 step 114: “receive a request for providing assistance to the vehicle”) from the first vehicle, the supervisory request being a request to monitor the first vehicle,
determine whether to determine a priority level (see at least [0025]: “In some examples, the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on a time at which the requests are received, a priority”; [0025]: “multiple request queues may be implemented simultaneously with an individual queue having differing criteria for ordering inbound requests and different sets of operators to service those requests.”) for the first supervisory request,
when it is determined that the priority level for the first supervisory request is not (see at least [0025]: “the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on a time at which the requests are received”) to be determined, process the first supervisory request (see at least FIG. 1 step 126: “determine an action to provide assistance to the vehicle”), wherein the first supervisory request is processed by a teleoperations monitor arrangement (see at least FIG. 2: remote operation system 112, remote operator management component 246), and wherein the logic operable to process the first supervisory request includes logic operable to determine whether (see at least [0087]: “the first remote operator may receive sensor data and view the event or situation encountered by the vehicle to provide input accordingly. As part of controlling the vehicle, the remote operation system 112 may transmit a request to have the vehicle switch to manual. In some examples, the switch may be rejected, for example in a case where a remote operator is identified and accepts a request, however, the vehicle has already resolved the situation and no longer requests assistance”) the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by a teleoperations operator (see at least FIG. 3: remote operation device 308, remote operation system 112) arrangement (see at least FIG. 3: architecture 300),
when it is determined that the priority level for the first supervisory request is (see at least [0025]: “In some examples, the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on … a priority”) to be determined, determine a first priority (see at least [0015]: “alternatively, the requests may be prioritized based on certain safety considerations, such as a vehicle operating speed (e.g., highway operation versus city street operation), occupancy status of the vehicle (occupied or vacant, number of occupants, etc.), length of ride, traffic volume, or other factors.”) for the first supervisory request, and
after the first priority is determined, add the first supervisory request to a queue (see at least [0015]: “the requests may be ordered within a queue”) according to the first priority, the queue including at least a second supervisory request (see at least [0025]: “The request queue serves to organize requests in response to the vehicle 102 … asking for assistance.”) having a second priority, and
determine whether the first priority is higher than the second priority, wherein when it is determined that the first priority is higher than the second priority, process the first supervisory request before (see at least [0064]: “The queue interface 248 may process the requests for selecting one or more remote operators, e.g., by removing the highest priority … requests from the queue and identifying those remote operators … to respond to the requests”) the second supervisory request, the first supervisory request being obtained from the queue by the teleoperations monitor arrangement and processed by the teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein the logic operable to process the first supervisory request includes logic operable to determine whether the first vehicle is to be remotely operated (see at least FIG. 1, [0030]: “at 126, the remote operator 108 may determine an action 128 that provides assistance to the vehicle 102, such as maneuvering around the construction zone 124. In some examples, the remote operator 108 may provide the vehicle 102 with guidance to avoid, maneuver around, or pass through events.”) by the teleoperations operator arrangement.
Regarding Claim 9, Goldman teaches The platform of claim 8 wherein the logic operable to process the first supervisory request is further operable to determine whether (see at least [0087]: “As part of controlling the vehicle, the remote operation system 112 may transmit a request to have the vehicle switch to manual. In some examples, the switch may be rejected, for example in a case where a remote operator is identified and accepts a request, however, the vehicle has already resolved the situation and no longer requests assistance.”) the first vehicle is to operate autonomously.
Regarding Claim 10, Goldman teaches The platform of claim 8
further including logic operable to obtain the second supervisory request from the first vehicle before (see at least [0026]: “the vehicle 102 may encounter different events that result in a request for remote operator input at or around the same time. In such examples, remote operation system 112 may receive requests for assistance from the vehicles 102.) obtaining the first supervisory request from the first vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11, Goldman teaches The platform of claim 10
further including a second vehicle (see at least FIG. 3: vehicle B 902(B)), and wherein the queue further includes a third supervisory request, the third supervisory request being associated with the second vehicle (see at least [0025]: “The request queue serves to organize requests in response to the vehicle 102, as well as other vehicles, asking for assistance).
Regarding Claim 14, Goldman teaches The platform of claim 8
wherein when it is determined that the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement, the logic is further operable to: add an indication (see at least FIG. 4 step 416: “send a first indication of the request to a first device of the first remote operator”) of the first vehicle to a teleoperations operator queue; and
provide a notification (see at least [0030]: “the remote operator 108 may determine an action 128 that provides assistance to the vehicle 102, such as maneuvering around the construction zone 124. … Additionally … the remote operator 108 may communicate with passengers of the vehicle 102”) to the first vehicle that the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement.
Regarding Claim 15, Goldman teaches An apparatus (see at least FIG. 2: architecture 200) comprising:
a processor (see at least FIG. 2: processor 234),
a memory (see at least FIG. 2: memory 236), the memory including a queue (see at least [0015]: “the requests may be ordered within a queue”); and
one or more tangible non-transitory, computer-readable medium (see at least [0058]: “the memory can be implemented using any suitable memory technology, such as … synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM)”) having logic encoded thereon, wherein the logic, when executed by the processor, is operable to (see at least FIG. 2, [0058]: “Memory 218 and 236 can store an operating system and one or more software applications, instructions, programs, and/or data to implement the methods described herein”)
obtain a first supervisory request (see at least FIG. 1 step 114: “receive a request for providing assistance to the vehicle”) from a first vehicle (see at least FIG. 3: vehicle A 302(a)), the supervisory request being a request to monitor the first vehicle,
determine a first priority (see at least [0025]: “In some examples, the requests are organized and ordered in the request queue based on a time at which the requests are received, a priority”; [0025]: “multiple request queues may be implemented simultaneously with an individual queue having differing criteria for ordering inbound requests and different sets of operators to service those requests.”) for the first supervisory request,
add the first supervisory request to the queue (see at least [0015]: “the requests may be ordered within a queue”) based on the first priority, wherein the queue includes at least a second supervisory request (see at least [0025]: “The request queue serves to organize requests in response to the vehicle 102 … asking for assistance.”), the second supervisory request having a second priority,
when the first priority is higher than the second priority, select the first supervisory request for processing before (see at least [0064]: “The queue interface 248 may process the requests for selecting one or more remote operators, e.g., by removing the highest priority … requests from the queue and identifying those remote operators … to respond to the requests”) the second supervisory request, wherein the logic operable to select the first supervisory request for processing is further operable to process the first supervisory request by determining whether the first vehicle is to be remotely operated (see at least FIG. 1, [0030]: “at 126, the remote operator 108 may determine an action 128 that provides assistance to the vehicle 102, such as maneuvering around the construction zone 124. In some examples, the remote operator 108 may provide the vehicle 102 with guidance to avoid, maneuver around, or pass through events.”) by the teleoperations operator arrangement, and
when it is determined that the first vehicle is to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement, provide a first notification (see at least FIG. 4: “send a first indication of the request to a first device of the first remote operator 416”) to the teleoperations operator arrangement and the first vehicle, the first notification being arranged to indicate that (see at least [0085]: “the indication may display information associated with the request and the vehicle, such as location, type of assistance needed”) the teleoperations operator arrangement is to remotely operate the first vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18, Goldman teaches The apparatus of claim 15
wherein the first supervisory request includes a first indication of an issue (see at least [0009]: “the autonomous vehicles are configured to automatically transmit the information … upon the occurrence of certain events (e.g., upon request of a fleet monitoring service, upon the vehicle traveling a threshold distance, upon detection of an object, upon an inability to traverse a region”) with the first vehicle, and the request to monitor the vehicle includes an instruction to monitor (see at least [0010]: “The remote operation system is associated with one or more remote operators that respond to or otherwise provide assistance to the autonomous vehicles.”; “one operator … may have criteria indicating skills with respect to situational awareness and planning”) the issue.
Regarding Claim 19, Goldman teaches The apparatus of claim 15
wherein the second supervisory request is associated with the first vehicle (see at least [0025]: “The request queue serves to organize requests in response to the vehicle 102 … asking for assistance).
Regarding Claim 20, Goldman teaches The apparatus of claim 15
wherein the logic is further operable to: when it is determined that the first vehicle is not (see at least [0087]: “As part of controlling the vehicle, the remote operation system 112 may transmit a request to have the vehicle switch to manual. In some examples, the switch may be rejected, for example in a case where a remote operator is identified and accepts a request, however, the vehicle has already resolved the situation and no longer requests assistance.”) to be remotely operated by the teleoperations operator arrangement, provide a second notification to the first vehicle, the second notification being arranged to indicate (see at least [0087]: “the request may be removed from the queue interface to avoid the request remaining on the queue interface”) that the first vehicle is to operate autonomously.
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al. (US 20240036571 A1) in view of Mertens et al. (US 12158756 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Goldman teach The method of claim 1.
However, Goldman does not explicitly teach further including: determining whether at least one of the first supervisory request and the second supervisory request are in the queue after a threshold amount of time has elapsed; and
reprioritizing the second supervisory request with respect to the first supervisory request when it is determined that the second supervisory request is in the queue after the threshold amount of time has elapsed.
Mertens teach further including: determining whether at least one of the first supervisory request and the second supervisory request are in the queue after a threshold amount of time (see at least (26) column 6 lines 23-27: “In the event a remote operator 150 does not accept the request, or fails to respond to the request within a predetermined period of time, the request may be returned to the queue and be prioritized for processing based on the elapsed time since the original request, among other factors.”) has elapsed; and
reprioritizing (see at least (66) column 17 lines 5-8: “The queue interface 308 may provide escalation of the returned requests such that they receive a higher priority score than other requests due to the elapsed time as a result of returning to the queue.”) the second supervisory request with respect to the first supervisory request when it is determined that the second supervisory request is in the queue after the threshold amount of time has elapsed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldman to incorporate the teachings of Mertens to reprioritize requests after an elapsed time in queue. Doing so would “not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle”, as recognized by Mertens in column 1 lines 47-48.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Goldman and Mertens teach The method of claim 5.
Goldman further teaches wherein a first severity level of the second supervisory request is lower than (see at least [0056]: “The requests may be sorted based on … a level of criticality in responding to the requests”) a second severity level of the first supervisory request.
Regarding claim 12, Goldman teach The platform of claim 8.
However, Goldman does not explicitly teach wherein the logic is further operable to: determine whether at least one of the first supervisory request and the second supervisory request are in the queue after a threshold amount of time has elapsed; and
reprioritize the second supervisory request with respect to the first supervisory request when it is determined that the second supervisory request is in the queue after the threshold amount of time has elapsed.
Mertens teach wherein the logic is further operable to: determine whether at least one of the first supervisory request and the second supervisory request are in the queue after a threshold amount of time (see at least (26) column 6 lines 23-27: “In the event a remote operator 150 does not accept the request, or fails to respond to the request within a predetermined period of time, the request may be returned to the queue and be prioritized for processing based on the elapsed time since the original request, among other factors.”) has elapsed; and
reprioritize (see at least (66) column 17 lines 5-8: “The queue interface 308 may provide escalation of the returned requests such that they receive a higher priority score than other requests due to the elapsed time as a result of returning to the queue.”) the second supervisory request with respect to the first supervisory request when it is determined that the second supervisory request is in the queue after the threshold amount of time has elapsed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldman to incorporate the teachings of Mertens to reprioritize requests after an elapsed time in queue. Doing so would “not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle”, as recognized by Mertens in column 1 lines 47-48.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Goldman and Mertens teach The platform of claim 12.
Goldman further teaches wherein a first severity level of the second supervisory request is lower than (see at least [0056]: “The requests may be sorted based on … a level of criticality in responding to the requests”) a second severity level of the first supervisory request.
Regarding claim 16, Goldman teach The apparatus of claim 15.
However, Goldman does not explicitly teach wherein the logic is further operable to: determine when a length of time the second supervisory request is in the queue meets a threshold amount of time;
when it is determined that the length of time meets the threshold amount of time, determine a new priority for the second supervisory request, the new priority being higher than the second priority, and after the new priority is determined, reorder the second supervisory request and the first supervisory request in the queue based on the new priority.
Mertens teach wherein the logic is further operable to: determine when a length of time the second supervisory request is in the queue meets a threshold amount of time;
when it is determined that the length of time meets the threshold amount of time, determine (see at least (26) column 6 lines 23-27: “In the event a remote operator 150 does not accept the request, or fails to respond to the request within a predetermined period of time, the request may be returned to the queue and be prioritized for processing based on the elapsed time since the original request, among other factors.”) a new priority for the second supervisory request, the new priority being higher than the second priority, and after the new priority is determined, reorder (see at least (66) column 17 lines 5-8: “The queue interface 308 may provide escalation of the returned requests such that they receive a higher priority score than other requests due to the elapsed time as a result of returning to the queue.”) the second supervisory request and the first supervisory request in the queue based on the new priority.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldman to incorporate the teachings of Mertens to reprioritize requests after an elapsed time in queue. Doing so would “not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle”, as recognized by Mertens in column 1 lines 47-48.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Goldman and Mertens teach The apparatus of claim 16.
Goldman further teaches wherein the first supervisory request has a first severity level and the second supervisory request has a second severity level, and wherein the first severity level is higher (see at least [0056]: “The requests may be sorted based on … a level of criticality in responding to the requests”) than the second severity level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pederson et al. (US 20190294159 A1) teaches prioritizing assistance requests based on urgency (see paragraph [0024]).
Liu et al. (US 20180364703 A1) teaches a system that prioritizes vehicle teleoperation requests based on safety urgency of the request (see paragraph [0142]).
Magzimof et al. (US 20190187691 A1) teaches a system that prioritizes remote support requests for a vehicle if the vehicle is traveling faster relative to surrounding traffic (see paragraph [0041]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/G.A.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662