DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 1/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 13, 15, and 22-23 have been amended and claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15-23 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are considered moot because the arguments are directed toward limitations that have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objections to the drawings, Applicant has amended the drawings to overcome the objections. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the specification, Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objections. The objections to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previously set forth rejections. The previously set forth rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have necessitated new rejections as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an in-vehicle driving operation member” in claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 22-23. Applicant’s specification discloses “Specific examples of the in-vehicle driving operation member 13 includes a steering wheel, an accelerator pedal, and a brake pedal” in paragraph [0014].
“a remote abnormality determination unit” in claims 1-2, 4-7, 12, 15-16, and 18. Applicant’s specification discloses “autonomous driving ECU 142 functions as a remote abnormality determination unit 1421” in paragraph [0046].
“an in-vehicle driving permission unit” in claims 1-16, and 21. Applicant’s specification discloses “autonomous driving ECU 142 functions as… an in-vehicle driving permission unit 1422” in paragraph [0046].
“a travel control unit” in claims 3 and 9. Applicant’s specification discloses “travel control ECU 150 corresponds to a travel control unit, and is implemented by an electronic control device that mainly includes a microcontroller” in paragraph [0037].
“an in-vehicle notification unit” in claims 13 and 15. Applicant’s specification discloses “in-vehicle notification unit 130 includes a speaker 131 and a display 132” in paragraph [0029].
“a remote driver monitoring device” in claims 17-18. Applicant’s specification discloses “ remote driver monitoring device 32 may include a near-infrared light source, a near-infrared camera, and a control unit that controls these components” in paragraph [0018].
“an administrator notification device” in claim 17. Applicant’s specification discloses “administrator notification device 34 includes a display 341 and a speaker 342” in paragraph [0021].
“an instruction providing unit” in claims 19-20. Applicant’s specification discloses “remote assist operation unit 368 corresponds to an instruction providing unit” in paragraph [0152] and that “remote control device 36 functions as a remote monitoring unit 366, a presentation control unit 367, and a remote assist operation unit 368, by executing a program stored in a non-volatile memory” in paragraph [0093]. Therefore, “instruction providing unit” is interpreted as a program being executed to perform the claimed functions.
“a notification control unit” in claim 19. Applicant’s specification discloses “presentation control unit 367 corresponds to a notification control unit” in paragraph [0152] and that “remote control device 36 functions as a remote monitoring unit 366, a presentation control unit 367, and a remote assist operation unit 368, by executing a program stored in a non-volatile memory” in paragraph [0093]. Therefore, “notification control unit” is interpreted as a program being executed to perform the claimed functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a remote driver” in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this recitation of “remote driver” refers to the recitation of remote driver in claim 1 or is a new remote driver.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0265710 A1; hereinafter Kaneko) in view of Nishitani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0023013 A1; hereinafter Nishitani) and further in view of Nix (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0339703).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko discloses:
A remote driving system controlling a remote driving vehicle (remote operation of vehicle M, see at least [0044]), the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving and an in-vehicle driving (vehicle control device including manual driving controller and remotely controlled driving controller, see at least [0009]; remote operator, see at least [0072]), the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remotely controlled driving controller to execute remotely controlled driving, see at least [0009]), the in-vehicle driving being performed by operating an in-vehicle driving operation member installed in the remote driving vehicle (steering device 220, brake device 210, travel driving power output device 200 are mounted on vehicle M, see at least [0045]),
a remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target (switching controller 161 determines whether to switch to the manual driving such as when a communication state between the communication device 20 and the remote operation management facility 300 is disconnected, see at least [0079])
an in-vehicle driving permission unit permitting the in-vehicle driving in response to the remote abnormality determination unit determining occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if communication is disconnected at step s102, continue through the process to eventually switch to manual driving at s122, see at least [0079], [0085], and Fig. 7),
wherein the in-vehicle driving permission unit does not permit the in-vehicle driving when the remote abnormality determination unit fails to determine occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if switching to manual is not performed in step s102, continue to execute remotely controlled driving, see Fig. 7 and [0080])
when the in-vehicle driving to be performed by an in-vehicle driver is permitted, a travel speed of the remote driving vehicle is less than a travel speed while the remote driving vehicle performs the remote driving (switching controller 161 gradually changes control information transmitted such as reduction of operation amount or control amount during a period until switching timing arrives such as a ratio control amount based on the manual driving to a control amount based on the remote driving, see at least [0085]) *Examiner sets forth that at the beginning of the switch to manual the remote control will have a higher control ratio than the manual which includes acceleration or speed
Kaneko does not explicitly disclose:
“abnormality”
a remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver
However, Nishitani teaches:
A remote driving system controlling a remote driving vehicle, the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving, the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remote driving taxi service using remote driving taxi 100 that is driven by remote driver 1, see at least [0026]),
a remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (remote driving taxi management device 300 monitors traveling state of remote driving taxi and determines whether there is abnormal traveling and determine abnormal driving of the remote driving taxi 100 itself or the abnormality of the remote driver 1, see at least [0119]);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident.” Although the switch disclosed by Kaneko is due to communication being disconnected, this could be a type of “abnormality.” Therefore, it would be advantageous to determine different types of “abnormalities” as taught by Nishitani to determine whether a change to manual is required.
Additionally, Nix teaches:
when the in-vehicle driving to be performed by an in-vehicle driver is permitted, a travel speed of the remote driving vehicle is less than a travel speed while the remote driving vehicle performs the remote driving (transition from remote control mode to regular mode when brake pedal is activated, see at least [0018]) *Examiner sets forth the speed is lower if a brake pedal is activated
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko and the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani by adding the brake activation taught by Nix with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that a driver in the vehicle may take over when desired (see [0073]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit does not permit the in-vehicle driving when the remote abnormality determination unit determines that no abnormality is occurred in the remote system (if switching to manual is not performed in step s102, continue to execute remotely controlled driving, see Fig. 7 and [0080])
Kaneko does not disclose:
the remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver and also sequentially determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote system
However, Nishitani teaches:
the remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver (remote driver terminal 200 determines whether there is abnormality of the remote driver, see at least [0119]) and also sequentially determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote system (remote driving taxi management determines whether there is abnormal traveling, see at least [0117])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident” (see [0122]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
a travel control unit equipped on the remote driving vehicle, the travel control unit controlling traveling of the remote driving vehicle based on a driving instruction value acquired from the remote system (remotely controlled driving controller 160, see at least [0045] and [0058]; remotely controlled driving controller 160 transmits a remote operation request using communication device 20 and executes remotely controlled driving, see at least [0067]; automated driving control unit includes remotely controlled driving controller, see at least [0058]), wherein the travel control unit is also capable of controlling traveling of the remote driving vehicle based on an operation amount of the in-vehicle driving operation member (driving operator 80 includes accelerator pedal, brake pedal, shift lever, steering wheel, and other operators and detection result is output to automated driving control unit 100, see at least [0056])
when the in-vehicle driving permission unit does not permit the in-vehicle driving, the travel control unit sequentially acquires a signal indicating the operation amount of the in-vehicle driving operation member (switching controller 161 gradually changes control which is a reduction of operation amount during period until switch, see at least [0024]-[0036]), and when the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving, the travel control unit controls traveling of the remote driving vehicle based on the acquired signal indicating the operation amount of the in-vehicle driving operation member (switch to manual driving, see at least [0026]) *Examiner sets forth manual driving is when a driver in a vehicle controls the vehicle using a steering wheel, brake pedal, and accelerator pedal
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the remote driving vehicle is capable of performing an autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation in which a remote driver has no obligation for periphery monitoring (vehicle control system may further include automated driving control to automatically control acceleration, deceleration, and steering, see at least [0010]; peripheral situations of vehicle can be handled, see at least [0062]), the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation requires an in-vehicle driver to be prepared for takeover of driving operation (handover for ending automated driving to manual, see at least [0062]; determine state of occupant such as grip of steering wheel as predetermined condition that driving is possible by occupant of vehicle M, see at least [0080]-[0081]) *Examiner sets forth that although the recited steps of [0080]-[0081] are for remote to manual, the same would apply for the automated to manual handover, the remote driving vehicle is equipped with a driver seat and an in-vehicle driver monitoring device (vehicle interior camera images body of occupant sitting on driving seat, see at least [0057]), the driver seat is prepared for an in-vehicle driver to operate the in-vehicle driving operation member, the in-vehicle driver monitoring device monitors whether the in-vehicle driver seated on the driver seat is prepared for taking over the driving operation (vehicle interior camera images body of occupant sitting on driving seat, see at least [0057]), and when the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target during execution of the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation in remote manner, the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving and continues the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation by switching the remote driver of the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation to the in-vehicle driver under a condition that the in-vehicle driver is prepared for taking over the driving operation (determine whether occupant of vehicle grips the steering wheel and satisfies a predetermined condition before switching to manual driving, see at least [0080]-[0081] and Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above but Kaneko does not disclose:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits only a brake operation as the in-vehicle driving
However, Reisner teaches:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits only a brake operation as the in-vehicle driving (transition from remote control mode to regular mode when brake pedal is activated, see at least [0018]) *Examiner sets forth the speed is lower if a brake pedal is activated
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko and the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani by adding the brake activation taught by Nix with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that a driver in the vehicle may take over when desired (see [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and further discloses:
a travel control unit controlling traveling of the remote driving vehicle, wherein, in a case where the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving, the travel control unit limits a travel speed of the remote driving vehicle to be lower compared with a case where the remote driving vehicle performs the remote driving (switching controller 161 gradually changes control information transmitted such as reduction of operation amount or control amount during a period until switching timing arrives such as a ratio control amount based on the manual driving to a control amount based on the remote driving, see at least [0085]) *Examiner sets forth that at the beginning of the switch to manual the remote control will have a higher control ratio than the manual which includes acceleration or speed
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
in the case where the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving, the in-vehicle driving permission unit further determines whether to permit a specific occupant, who attempts to operate the in-vehicle driving operation member, to perform the in-vehicle driving based on occupant information related to the specific occupant (controller determines whether occupant state of the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition, see at least [0014] and [0081]) *Examiner sets forth the occupant is a “specific occupant” and that the occupant must meet a predetermined condition (“occupant information related to specific occupant”)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit: acquires, from the remote system, a determination result indicating whether to permit the specific occupant to perform the in-vehicle driving, the determination result being generated based on the occupant information; and decides, according to the acquired determination result, whether to permit the specific occupant to perform the in-vehicle driving (controller determines whether occupant state of the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition, see at least [0014] and [0081]) *Examiner sets forth the occupant is a “specific occupant” and that the occupant must meet a predetermined condition (“occupant information related to specific occupant”)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit outputs, via an in-vehicle notification unit equipped on the remote driving vehicle, a notification about switching to the in-vehicle driving in response to the remote abnormality determination unit determining occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (notification unit 162 suggests a switching check screen using the HMI 30 including a message indicating remote driving is in progress and message for checking that manual driving is started, see at least [0082] and Fig. 9; notification unit 162 also notifies remaining time until switch, see at least [0084] and Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above but Kaneko does not disclose:
a remote driver monitoring device sequentially monitoring whether the remote driver is in a state suitable for the remote driving; and an administrator notification device notifying, to an administrator, that the remote driver is not in the state suitable for the remote driving in response to a monitoring result acquired by the remote driver monitoring device indicating that the remote driver is not in the state suitable for the remote driving, wherein the administrator is different from the remote driver and is capable of operating the remote system.
However, Nishitani teaches:
a remote driver monitoring device sequentially monitoring whether the remote driver is in a state suitable for the remote driving (processor 251 determines whether there is abnormality of the remote driver 1 based on driver monitor 240, see at least [0164]); and an administrator notification device notifying, to an administrator, that the remote driver is not in the state suitable for the remote driving in response to a monitoring result acquired by the remote driver monitoring device indicating that the remote driver is not in the state suitable for the remote driving, wherein the administrator is different from the remote driver and is capable of operating the remote system (when abnormality of driver 1 is detected, processor 251 gives notice of abnormality to remote driving taxi management device 300, see at least [0164])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident” (see [0122]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
an instruction providing unit providing a driving instruction value for performing the remote driving to a target remote driving vehicle when multiple remote driving vehicles including the remote driving vehicle are under management of the remote system (remote operation management facility 300, see at least [0071]; plurality of vehicles and remote operation management facility communicate, see at least [0043]; remote operation request is transmitted, see at least [0044])
Kaneko does not disclose:
a notification control unit notifying the remote driver about the target remote driving vehicle having a higher priority than remaining remote driving vehicle when multiple requests for executing the remote driving are acquired from the multiple remote driving vehicles
However, Nishitani teaches:
a notification control unit notifying the remote driver about the target remote driving vehicle having a higher priority than remaining remote driving vehicle when multiple requests for executing the remote driving are acquired from the multiple remote driving vehicles (remote driving taxi management device 300 executes assignment process in response to assignment request, select the first remote driving taxi in accordance with the priority order indicated in the waiting list, see at least [0073]-[0074]; send assignment notice to remote driver terminal, see at least [0077])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote operation management disclosed by Kaneko by adding the priority order taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that “work opportunity is increased, and the operational efficiency is enhanced” (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 22, Kaneko discloses:
A remote driving method controlling a remote driving vehicle (remote operation of vehicle M, see at least [0044]), the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving and an in-vehicle driving (vehicle control device including manual driving controller and remotely controlled driving controller, see at least [0009]; remote operator, see at least [0072]), the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remotely controlled driving controller to execute remotely controlled driving, see at least [0009]), the in-vehicle driving being performed by operating an in-vehicle driving operation member installed in the remote driving vehicle (steering device 220, brake device 210, travel driving power output device 200 are mounted on vehicle M, see at least [0045]), the remote driving method comprising:
sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (switching controller 161 determines whether to switch to the manual driving such as when a communication state between the communication device 20 and the remote operation management facility 300 is disconnected, see at least [0079])
permitting the in-vehicle driving in response to determining occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if communication is disconnected at step s102, continue through the process to eventually switch to manual driving at s122, see at least [0079], [0085], and Fig. 7); and
forbidding the in-vehicle driving in response to failing to determine occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if switching to manual is not performed in step s102, continue to execute remotely controlled driving, see Fig. 7 and [0080])
in response to the in-vehicle driving to be performed by an in-vehicle driver being permitted, a travel speed of the remote driving vehicle is less than a travel speed while the remote driving vehicle performs the remote driving (switching controller 161 gradually changes control information transmitted such as reduction of operation amount or control amount during a period until switching timing arrives such as a ratio control amount based on the manual driving to a control amount based on the remote driving, see at least [0085]) *Examiner sets forth that at the beginning of the switch to manual the remote control will have a higher control ratio than the manual which includes acceleration or speed
Kaneko does not explicitly disclose:
“abnormality”
However, Nishitani teaches:
A remote driving system controlling a remote driving vehicle, the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving, the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remote driving taxi service using remote driving taxi 100 that is driven by remote driver 1, see at least [0026]),
sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (remote driving taxi management device 300 monitors traveling state of remote driving taxi and determines whether there is abnormal traveling and determine abnormal driving of the remote driving taxi 100 itself or the abnormality of the remote driver 1, see at least [0119]);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident.” Although the switch disclosed by Kaneko is due to communication being disconnected, this could be a type of “abnormality.” Therefore, it would be advantageous to determine different types of “abnormalities” as taught by Nishitani to determine whether a change to manual is required.
Additionally, Nix teaches:
when the in-vehicle driving to be performed by an in-vehicle driver is permitted, a travel speed of the remote driving vehicle is less than a travel speed while the remote driving vehicle performs the remote driving (transition from remote control mode to regular mode when brake pedal is activated, see at least [0018]) *Examiner sets forth the speed is lower if a brake pedal is activated
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko and the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani by adding the brake activation taught by Nix with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that a driver in the vehicle may take over when desired (see [0073]).
Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0265710 A1; hereinafter Kaneko) in view of Nishitani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0023013 A1; hereinafter Nishitani) and further in view of Nakano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0413489 A1; hereinafter Nakano).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko discloses:
A remote driving system controlling a remote driving vehicle (remote operation of vehicle M, see at least [0044]), the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving and an in-vehicle driving (vehicle control device including manual driving controller and remotely controlled driving controller, see at least [0009]; remote operator, see at least [0072]), the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remotely controlled driving controller to execute remotely controlled driving, see at least [0009]), the in-vehicle driving being performed by operating an in-vehicle driving operation member installed in the remote driving vehicle (steering device 220, brake device 210, travel driving power output device 200 are mounted on vehicle M, see at least [0045]), the remote driving system comprising:
a remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (switching controller 161 determines whether to switch to the manual driving such as when a communication state between the communication device 20 and the remote operation management facility 300 is disconnected, see at least [0079]); and
an in-vehicle driving permission unit permitting the in-vehicle driving in response to the remote abnormality unit determining occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if communication is disconnected at step s102, continue through the process to eventually switch to manual driving at s122, see at least [0079], [0085], and Fig. 7), wherein the in-vehicle driving permission unit does not permit the in-vehicle driving when the remote abnormality determination unit fails to determine occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if switching to manual is not performed in step s102, continue to execute remotely controlled driving, see Fig. 7 and [0080])
Kaneko does not explicitly disclose:
“abnormality”
a remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver
wherein the in-vehicle driving permission unit determines whether a substitute for the remote driver who performs the remote driving exists,
in response to determining that no substitute for the remote driver exists, during and while maintaining the remote diving, the in-vehicle driving permission unit restricts partial driving function of the remote driving vehicle
However, Nishitani teaches:
A remote driving system controlling a remote driving vehicle, the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving, the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remote driving taxi service using remote driving taxi 100 that is driven by remote driver 1, see at least [0026]),
a remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (remote driving taxi management device 300 monitors traveling state of remote driving taxi and determines whether there is abnormal traveling and determine abnormal driving of the remote driving taxi 100 itself or the abnormality of the remote driver 1, see at least [0119]);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident.” Although the switch disclosed by Kaneko is due to communication being disconnected, this could be a type of “abnormality.” Therefore, it would be advantageous to determine different types of “abnormalities” as taught by Nishitani to determine whether a change to manual is required.
Furthermore, Nakano teaches:
wherein the in-vehicle driving permission unit determines whether a substitute for the remote driver who performs the remote driving exists (switching destination determining unit determines a switching destination remote operation device from candidate remote operation devices depending on whether switching determination condition is satisfied, see at least [0160])
in response to determining that no substitute for the remote driver exists, during and while maintaining the remote diving, the in-vehicle driving permission unit restricts partial driving function of the remote driving vehicle (if no candidate remote operation device satisfies the switching determination condition and no switching destination remote operation device has been determined, operation control unit 14 of remote operation device 1 generates operation information for stopping the vehicle, see at least [0162] *Examiner sets forth stopping a vehicle is restricting driving function
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko and the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani by adding the remote candidate determination taught by Nakano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to attempt maintaining remote driving when a problem in a current remote driving occurs (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 23, Kaneko discloses:
A remote driving method controlling a remote driving vehicle (remote operation of vehicle M, see at least [0044]), the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving and an in-vehicle driving (vehicle control device including manual driving controller and remotely controlled driving controller, see at least [0009]; remote operator, see at least [0072]), the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remotely controlled driving controller to execute remotely controlled driving, see at least [0009]), the in-vehicle driving being performed by operating an in-vehicle driving operation member installed in the remote driving vehicle (steering device 220, brake device 210, travel driving power output device 200 are mounted on vehicle M, see at least [0045]), the remote driving method comprising:
sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (switching controller 161 determines whether to switch to the manual driving such as when a communication state between the communication device 20 and the remote operation management facility 300 is disconnected, see at least [0079]); and
permitting the in-vehicle driving in response to determining occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if communication is disconnected at step s102, continue through the process to eventually switch to manual driving at s122, see at least [0079], [0085], and Fig. 7);
forbidding the in-vehicle driving in response to failing to determine occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (if switching to manual is not performed in step s102, continue to execute remotely controlled driving, see Fig. 7 and [0080]);
Kaneko does not explicitly disclose:
“abnormality”
determining whether a substitute for the remote driver who performs the remote driving exists; and
in response to determining that no substitute for the remote driver exists, during and while maintaining the remote driving, restricting partial driving function of the remote driving vehicle
However, Nishitani teaches:
A remote driving system controlling a remote driving vehicle, the remote driving vehicle being capable of performing a remote driving, the remote driving being performed by a remote driver (remote driving taxi service using remote driving taxi 100 that is driven by remote driver 1, see at least [0026]),
sequentially determining occurrence of an abnormality in a remote determination target, the remote determination target being the remote driver or a remote system operated by the remote driver (remote driving taxi management device 300 monitors traveling state of remote driving taxi and determines whether there is abnormal traveling and determine abnormal driving of the remote driving taxi 100 itself or the abnormality of the remote driver 1, see at least [0119]);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident.” Although the switch disclosed by Kaneko is due to communication being disconnected, this could be a type of “abnormality.” Therefore, it would be advantageous to determine different types of “abnormalities” as taught by Nishitani to determine whether a change to manual is required.
Furthermore, Nakano teaches:
wherein the in-vehicle driving permission unit determines whether a substitute for the remote driver who performs the remote driving exists (switching destination determining unit determines a switching destination remote operation device from candidate remote operation devices depending on whether switching determination condition is satisfied, see at least [0160])
in response to determining that no substitute for the remote driver exists, during and while maintaining the remote diving, the in-vehicle driving permission unit restricts partial driving function of the remote driving vehicle (if no candidate remote operation device satisfies the switching determination condition and no switching destination remote operation device has been determined, operation control unit 14 of remote operation device 1 generates operation information for stopping the vehicle, see at least [0162] *Examiner sets forth stopping a vehicle is restricting driving function
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko and the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani by adding the remote candidate determination taught by Nakano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to attempt maintaining remote driving when a problem in a current remote driving occurs (see [0010]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nakano as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Reisner (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0250240 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nakano teaches the elements above
after the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving, the remote driving vehicle automatically switches to an in-vehicle driving mode in response to detecting an operation made on the in-vehicle driving operation member.
However, Reisner teaches:
after the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving, the remote driving vehicle automatically switches to an in-vehicle driving mode in response to detecting an operation made on the in-vehicle driving operation member (remotely initiated vehicle braking may be overridden if brake pedal is engaged again, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko, the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the remote candidate determination taught by Nakano by adding the switching of controls based on fatigue taught by Rangan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manually override a remote control (see [0029]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nix as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rangan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0290740 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the remote driving vehicle is equipped with a driver seat and an in-vehicle driver monitoring device (vehicle interior camera images upper half body of an occupant sitting on driving seat, see at least [0057]), the driver is prepared for an in-vehicle driver to operate the in-vehicle driving operation member (detect state of occupant of vehicle M such as gripping the steering wheel, see at least [0080]-[0081]),
However, Kaneko does not disclose:
consciousness level
However, Nishitani teaches:
the remote abnormality determination unit sequentially determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver and determines, based on a consciousness level of the remote driver, whether the remote driver has a sign of abnormality (determines whether there is an abnormality of the remote driver 1 including a catnap, see at least [0119])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident” (see [0122]).
Furthermore, Rangan teaches:
the in-vehicle driver monitoring device sequentially determines a consciousness level of the in-vehicle driver seated on the driver seat (eye tracking sensors monitor eye movement of a pilot and can provide indication of increasing fatigue level of flight crew member, see at least [0045]) *Examiner sets forth an increase fatigue level is a decreased consciousness,
when the remote abnormality determination unit determines that the remote driver has the sign of abnormality and the in-vehicle driver monitoring device determines the consciousness level of the in-vehicle driver, the in-vehicle driving permission unit permits the in-vehicle driving to one of the in-vehicle driver or the remote driver who has a higher consciousness level (switch control of aircraft back to pilot in response to determining current remote operator is experiencing fatigue above a threshold and pilot on aircraft is experiencing fatigue below threshold, see at least [0122])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko, the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the switching of controls based on fatigue taught by Rangan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce risks posed by a driver’s fatigue levels (see [0005]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nix as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ogura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0168501 A1; hereinafter Ogura).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above but Kaneko does not disclose:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit: stops the remote driving vehicle when the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target; and after the remote driving vehicle is stopped, permits restart of the remote driving in response to execution of a resolution process for resolving the abnormality occurred in the remote determination target
However, Nishitani teaches:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit: stops the remote driving vehicle when the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target (a traveling restriction after an abnormality is determined may be an emergency stop to a safe position such as a road shoulder, see at least [0116])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko by adding the emergency stop in response to a remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to restrain the occurrence of an accident” (see [0122]).
Furthermore, Ogura teaches:
after the remote driving vehicle is stopped, permits restart of the remote driving in response to execution of a resolution process for resolving the abnormality occurred in the remote determination target (when abnormality in vehicle body arises, vehicle is stopped, see at least [0119]; when cause of interruption is resolved, autonomous traveling is restarted, see at least [0120])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle switching to a manual driving disclosed by Kaneko, the emergency stop in response to a remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the restart of travelling after an issue is resolved as taught by Ogura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continue operation after an abnormality that caused a stop and for safety (see [0120]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nix as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yokota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0016797 A1; hereinafter Yokota).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit outputs a notification, via an in-vehicle notification unit equipped on the remote driving vehicle (notification unit 162 uses display 31 for indicating remote control and switch to manual, see at least [0067] and Figs. 8-10)
Kaneko does not disclose:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit outputs a notification, via an in-vehicle notification unit equipped to the remote driving vehicle, in response to acquiring, from the remote system, replacement information indicating replacement of the remote driver who performs the remote driving
However, Yokota teaches:
the in-vehicle driving permission unit outputs a notification, via an in-vehicle notification unit equipped to the remote driving vehicle, in response to acquiring, from the remote system, replacement information indicating replacement of the remote driver who performs the remote driving (enable travel of vehicle to be continued by remote driving by another remote operator in cases which remote operation by the remote operator becomes compromised, see at least [0015]; display indicates driving state of vehicle and icons used to change remote driver, see at least [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle and display of control switches disclosed by Kaneko, the emergency stop in response to a remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the another remote operator taught by Yokota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable “travel of the vehicle to be continued by the other remote operator in cases in which remote operation by the remote operator has become compromised” (see [0008]).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nix as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0391756 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the remote driving vehicle is able to switch between an autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation, the remote driver has no obligation to monitor a periphery area during the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation (action plan generator decides events to be executed in automated driving and peripheral situations of vehicle M can be handled, see at least [0062])
Kaneko does not disclose:
an autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation
the in-vehicle driving permission unit sets contents of notifications to be different in a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target during the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation from a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation
However, Wang teaches:
an autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation, the remote driver has obligation to monitor the periphery area during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation (autonomous driving levels 1-3 require driver’s attention, see at least [0037])
the in-vehicle driving permission unit sets contents of notifications to be different in a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target during the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation from a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote determination target during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation (level 5 autonomous driving requires no human attention and the automatic pilot system controls all critical tasks, see at least [0047]; up to level 4 the automatic pilot system still notifies driver of conditions, see at least [0037]) *Examiner sets forth that a notification would not be sent at level 5 because the automatic pilot system controls the vehicle without human intervention
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving and remote vehicle disclosed by Kaneko, the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the different autonomous driving levels taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is a well known to have multiple levels of automation (such as by SAE international and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). Furthermore, it would be obvious to One having ordinary skill in the art that a notification would be required for levels that require human attention and no notification would be required for levels that are fully autonomous without the need for human attention because a driver would not need to intervene in the fully autonomous level.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
the remote driving vehicle is able to switch between an autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation, the remote driver has no obligation to monitor a periphery area during the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation (action plan generator decides events to be executed in automated driving and peripheral situations of vehicle M can be handled, see at least [0062]),
Kaneko does not disclose:
an autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation
the remote driver has obligation to monitor the periphery area during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation, and the remote driver monitoring device sets contents of notifications to be different in a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver during the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation from a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation.
However, Wang teaches:
an autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation, the remote driver has obligation to monitor the periphery area during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation (autonomous driving levels 1-3 require driver’s attention, see at least [0037])
the remote driver monitoring device sets contents of notifications to be different in a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver during the autonomous driving without periphery monitoring obligation from a case where the remote abnormality determination unit determines occurrence of the abnormality in the remote driver during the autonomous driving with periphery monitoring obligation. (level 5 autonomous driving requires no human attention and the automatic pilot system controls all critical tasks, see at least [0047]; up to level 4 the automatic pilot system still notifies driver of conditions, see at least [0037]) *Examiner sets forth that a notification would not be sent at level 5 because the automatic pilot system controls the vehicle without human intervention
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving and remote vehicle disclosed by Kaneko, the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the different autonomous driving levels taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is a well known to have multiple levels of automation (such as by SAE international and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). Furthermore, it would be obvious to One having ordinary skill in the art that a notification would be required for levels that require human attention and no notification would be required for levels that are fully autonomous without the need for human attention because a driver would not need to intervene in the fully autonomous level.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nix as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hendrickson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0348791 A1; hereinafter Hendrickson).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above and Kaneko further discloses:
an instruction providing unit providing a driving instruction value for performing the remote driving to a target remote driving vehicle when multiple remote driving vehicles including the remote driving vehicle are under management of the remote system (remote operation management facility 300, see at least [0071]; plurality of vehicles and remote operation management facility communicate, see at least [0043]; remote operation request is transmitted, see at least [0044])
Kaneko does not disclose:
wherein the multiple remote driving vehicles travel in convoy, when the abnormality occurs in a front remote driving vehicle and no abnormality occurs in a rear remote driving vehicle, the instruction providing unit provides instructions to the front remote driving vehicle and the rear remote driving vehicle to switch a position of the front remote driving vehicle with a position of the rear remote driving vehicle, and the front remote driving vehicle is the remote driving vehicle travels in front of remaining remote driving vehicle and the rear remote driving vehicle is the remote driving vehicle travels behind the front remote driving vehicle.
However, Hendrickson teaches:
wherein the multiple remote driving vehicles travel in convoy (remote host controller 199 may send commands to vehicles 1-N in a platoon, see at least [0015]), when the abnormality occurs in a front remote driving vehicle and no abnormality occurs in a rear remote driving vehicle (determining exhaust temperature is greater than a threshold, see at least [0031], see at least [0031] and Fig. 3A), the instruction providing unit provides instructions to the front remote driving vehicle and the rear remote driving vehicle to switch a position of the front remote driving vehicle with a position of the rear remote driving vehicle (request to change position of leader vehicle to a follower position so vehicle’s engine may operate at a cooler temperature, see at least [0032]), and the front remote driving vehicle is the remote driving vehicle travels in front of remaining remote driving vehicle and the rear remote driving vehicle is the remote driving vehicle travels behind the front remote driving vehicle (follower vehicle is selected to replace lead vehicle by swapping position and positions of other vehicles in the platoon are adjusted, see at least [0047])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote operation facility for a plurality of vehicles disclosed by Kaneko, the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the swap of leader and follower vehicle taught by Hendrickson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow a platoon to adjust a travel position in the face of some sort of problem.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Nishitani and Nix as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Matsushita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0016795 A1; hereinafter Matsushita).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kaneko, Nishitani, and Nix teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the remote driving vehicle is equipped with an external display unit, and the in-vehicle driving permission unit displays, on the external display unit toward outside of the remote driving vehicle, driving state information indicating whether the remote driving vehicle is performing the remote driving or the in-vehicle driving.
However, Matsushita teaches:
the remote driving vehicle is equipped with an external display unit (mounting notification unit such as display or speaker on vehicle body surface, see at least [0097]), and the in-vehicle driving permission unit displays, on the external display unit toward outside of the remote driving vehicle, driving state information indicating whether the remote driving vehicle is performing the remote driving or the in-vehicle driving (driving state or transitional state can be notified toward the exterior of the given vehicle 12 using notification unit 32, see at least [0097])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled vehicle and display of control switches disclosed by Kaneko, the remote driving abnormality determination taught by Nishitani, and the brake activation taught by Nix by adding the exterior notification taught by Matsushita with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to notify the other vehicle 14 of information relating to the driving state or transitional state using a simple configuration without using the inter-vehicle communication” (see [0098]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662