Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/655,333

REMOTE OPERATION CONTROL SYSTEM, REMOTE OPERATION CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 06, 2024
Examiner
SINGH, ESVINDER
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
147 granted / 195 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
226
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.0%
+17.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 195 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims Claims 1-3 and 5-8 remain pending. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claim Objections Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 7-8 have been amended to recite “wherein the control information based on a result of synthesizing a content” and “the operation performed by the first operator and the operation performed by the second operator executed at the same time”. These portions are not written in grammatically correct English and should be amended to read “wherein the control information is based on a result of synthesizing a content” and “the operation performed by the first operator and the operation performed by the second operator are executed at the same time”. Claims 2 and 6 recite “wherein the processor configured to:”. This should be amended to read “wherein the processor is configured to:” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai et al (US 20210247763 A1) in view of Kimoto (US 20190318660 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kasai and Kimoto respectively) Regarding Claims 1 and 7-8, Kasai teaches a remote operation control system (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0038, 0040, and Figure 1, the system shown in Figure 1 is interpreted as the remote operation control system), a remote operation control method (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0040 and Figure 6), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a program (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0109, the ROM and RAM are interpreted as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program), in which an operator remotely operates a remote operation target that is an object of reality or a virtual object of a virtual world (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0040, and Figure 1, the operator remotely operates the robot, which is a remote operation target that is an object of reality), the remote operation control system comprising a processor (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0108-0109) configured to/the program causes a computer to: acquire first operation information indicating an operation inputted by a first operator via a first controller that receives an operation on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0040, 0049, 0108, and Figure 2, the control device acquires first operation information by the first operator via a first external controller), and second operation information indicating an operation inputted by a second operator via a second controller that receives an operation on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0040, 0049, 0108, and Figure 2, the control device acquires second operation information by the second operator via a second external controller); generate control information for causing the remote operation target to move based on the first operation information and the second operation information (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0059, 0080, 0086, and Figure 7, the control device generates control information for driving/moving the robot/remote operation target based on the first and second operation information), wherein the control information based on a result of synthesizing a content of remote operation performed by the first operator and a content of remote operation performed by the second operator (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0058-0059, 0086, and Figure 7, the control information is generated based on synthesizing the remote operation from the first and second operator), wherein the operation performed by the first operator and the operation performed by the second operator executed at the same time (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0083, 0086, and Figure 7, the operation performed by the first operator S211 and the operation performed by the second operator S215 are executed at the same time)… Kasai fails to disclose based on the control information, generate first feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the first controller and generate second feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the second controller, wherein the first feedback information causes the first controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot, and the second feedback information causes the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot. However, Kimoto teaches based on the control information, generate first feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the first controller (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0008, 0033-0040, and Figure 4, the motion content of the remote operation target/robot is fed back to the first controller/computer) and generate second feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the second controller (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0008 and 0052-0058, the motion content of the remote operation target/robot is fed back to the second controller/computer), wherein the first feedback information causes the first controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0038-0040, the robot is moved on the display of the first controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely controlled robot), and the second feedback information causes the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0056-0058, the robot is moved on the display of the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely controlled robot). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Kasai with Kimoto to feedback the motion content of the remote operation target to the first and second controller. This modification, as taught by Kimoto, would allow the first operator to accurately understand robot operations by the second operator (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0040), and allow the second operator to learn the appropriate robot operation, while staying at a place different from a place where the first operator is (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0058), which is highly advantageous for efficient learning of appropriate robot operation (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0097). Regarding Claim 2, modified Kasai fails to disclose the processor configured to: generate the second feedback information for transmitting an operation content performed by the first operator to the second operator via the second controller based on the motion of the remote operation target executed based on the operation inputted by the first operator, and generate the first feedback information for transmitting an operation content performed by the second operator to the first operator via the first controller based on the motion of the remote operation target executed based on the operation inputted by the second operator. However, Kimoto teaches generate the second feedback information for transmitting an operation content performed by the first operator to the second operator via the second controller based on the motion of the remote operation target executed based on the operation inputted by the first operator (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0008 and 0052-0058, the operation content performed by the first operator is sent to the second operator via the second controller/second computer based on the motion of the remote operation target/robot executed based on the operation input by the first operator), and generate the first feedback information for transmitting an operation content performed by the second operator to the first operator via the first controller based on the motion of the remote operation target executed based on the operation inputted by the second operator (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0008, 0033-0040, and Figure 4, the operation content performed by the second operator is sent to the first operator via the first controller/first computer based on the motion of the remote operation target/robot executed based on the operation input by the second operator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kasai with Kimoto to transmit the operation content of the first operator to the second operator and transmit the operation content of the second operator to the first operator. This modification, as taught by Kimoto, would allow the first operator to accurately understand robot operations by the second operator (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0040), and allow the second operator to learn the appropriate robot operation, while staying at a place different from a place where the first operator is (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0058), which is highly advantageous for efficient learning of appropriate robot operation (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0097). Regarding Claim 3, modified Kasai fails to disclose the processor configured to: generate a comparison image that is an image data to be displayed on a first display part for the first operator or a second display part for the second operator and shows a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator. However, Kimoto teaches generate a comparison image that is an image data to be displayed on a first display part for the first operator or a second display part for the second operator and shows a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0029, 0076 and 0095-0103, the second display part for the second operator displays a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kasai with Kimoto to display a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator on the second display part. This modification, as taught by Kimoto, would allow the second operator to efficiently learn appropriate robot operation through the comparison, while staying at a place different from a place where the first operator is (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0058 and 0103), which is highly advantageous for efficient learning of appropriate robot operation (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0097). Regarding Claim 5, modified Kasai teaches when synthesizing the content of remote operation performed by the first operator and the content of remote operation performed by the second operator, the processor generates the control information in which the operation of the second operator is prioritized as compared to the first operator (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0064-0071 and Figures 4b-4c, the control information being generated with a weight synthesis of the second operator being greater than 0.5 is interpreted as prioritizing the second operator). Regarding Claim 6, modified Kasai teaches the processor configured to: generate third feedback information for transmitting a feeling or a sense obtained on a remote operation target side to the first operator via the first controller based on a detection result by a sensor mounted on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0104 and Figure 9, a sense obtained on a remote operation target side by a sensor mounted on the remote operation target/robot is sent to the first operator via the first controller by using the control device, which is interpreted to include the feedback information generation part), and generate fourth feedback information for transmitting a feeling or a sense obtained on the remote operation target side to the second operator via the second controller based on a detection result by the sensor mounted on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0104 and Figure 9, a sense obtained on a remote operation target side by a sensor mounted on the remote operation target/robot is sent to the second operator via the second controller by using the control device, which is interpreted to include the feedback information generation part). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Pages 10-11 of the remarks, that Kasai does not teach “the operation performed by the first operator and the operation performed by the second operator executed at the same time”. Applicant states that Kasai teaches “switching from the state in which only the first-type driving instruction is used to the state in which only the second-type driving instruction is used…. there is only one operator operates the robot at a time”. However, Kasai teaches performing a weighted synthesis of the first-type driving instruction from the first operator with the second-type driving instruction from the second operator. Paragraph 0058 of Kasai states “At that time, the transition control unit 120 switches from a first-type driving instruction to a second-type driving instruction via a transition driving instruction that is generated based on the first-type driving instruction and the second-type driving instruction.”. The transition driving instruction is generated from synthesizing the content from the first operator and the second operator. Therefore, as long as the weighted synthesis is any value other than 0 or 1, the two operators are both controlling the robot at the same time. Furthermore, Kasai teaches the operation performed by the first operator and the second operator are executed at the same time in Figure 7. Figure 7 is a sequence of events. As shown in Figure 7, the operation performed by the first operator S211 and the operation performed by the second operator S215 occur at the same time. The operations performed by both operators are used control the robot in S221. Therefore, Kasai teaches features A. Furthermore, Applicant argues, on Page 12 of the remarks, that Kimoto does not teach the first feedback information and second feedback information are used to reproduce the motion of the remotely operated robot via the first controller and the second controller. Applicant gives an example of sharing sensor information such as the tactile sense as reproducing the motion of the robot. Applicant states that Kimoto “only discloses content of operation is displayed through an image displayed on the display device”. However, the display for each controller reproduces the motion of the robot. When the robot is controlled by the second operator using the second controller, the operational data and motion data of the robot are transmitted to the first controller, and the display of the first controller moves the robot using the corresponding operational data and motion data (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0038-0039). Moving the robot on the display of the first controller using the feedback information from the second controller is reproducing the motion of the remotely operated robot. Furthermore, when the robot is controlled by the first operator using the first controller, the operational data and motion data of the robot are transmitted to the second controller, and the display of the second controller moves the robot using the corresponding operational data and motion data (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0056-0057). Moving the robot on the display of the second controller using the feedback information from the first controller is reproducing the motion of the remotely operated robot. Therefore, Kimoto teaches reproducing the motion of the remotely operated robot. If Applicant intends for the reproduction of the motion to be generated using a tactile sense, Applicant should explicitly recite that in the claims. For these reasons, claims 1-3 and 5-8 remain rejected under 103. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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. /ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 31, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596372
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING MOVEMENT OF MOVING BODY AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583120
MANAGEMENT SERVER, REMOTE OPERATION SYSTEM, REMOTE OPERATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583121
CALIBRATION APPARATUS FOR CALIBRATING MECHANISM ERROR PARAMETER FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585278
ROBOT NAVIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583118
ROBOTIC DEVICE WORKSPACE MAPPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 195 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month