DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano (US 20210139017 A1) in view of Dyer (US 20210374623 A1).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Sugano teaches a control device configured to remotely control a plurality of mobile objects, comprising (Sugano: [0040]):
Processing circuitry configured to (Sugano: [0048]):
Generate a control command corresponding to each of the plurality of mobile objects (Sugano: [0037] and [0098]);
Transmit, to each mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects, the control command corresponding to the mobile object (Sugano: [0113] and [0131]);
Acquire command information, internal sensor information, and external sensor information (Sugano: [0112], [0113], and [0131]),
The command information being related to the control command (Sugano: [0113] and [0131]),
The internal sensor information being related to a state of movement of the mobile object detected by an internal sensor mounted in the mobile object (Sugano: [0116]),
The external sensor information being related to a state of movement of the mobile object detected by an external sensor located outside of the mobile object (Sugano: [0043] and [0043]);
And detect that the control command is transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command… by comparing at least two of the command information, the internal sensor information, and the external sensor information (Sugano: [0065] and [0100] Note that comparing internal and external information to determine a vehicle abnormality based on a predetermined threshold is equivalent to detecting the control command transmitted to one of the mobile objects does not correspond with the control command.).
Sugano fails to explicitly teach in a case that includes a case where a communication device removed from one of the plurality of mobile objects is erroneously mounted onto another one of the plurality of mobile objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dyer teaches to detect that the control command is transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command, in a case that includes a case where a communication device removed from one of the plurality of mobile objects is erroneously mounted onto another one of the plurality of mobile objects, by comparing at least two of the command information, the internal sensor information, and the external sensor information (Dyer: [0024] and [0025] Note that identifying the passenger actual destination and changing the vehicle's destination is equivalent to detecting the control command was transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command. Also, note that the passenger's client computing device is equivalent to the communication device because the passenger's client computing device may be removed and placed in each vehicle the passenger enters.).
Sugano and Dyer are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugano to incorporate the teachings of Dyer to detect that the control command transmitted to one of the mobile objects does not correspond to the control command in a case where a communication device is removed from a mobile object and erroneously mounted onto another mobile object because it provides the benefit of indicating the communication device is in the wrong mobile object, as explicitly explained in [0024] of Dyer. The passenger with the communication device in the wrong vehicle may be determined and a change in commands to the vehicle ensures the passenger will end up at the correct destination.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Sugano and Dyer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dyer teaches to detect that the control command is transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command, by comparing at least two of a parameter value identified from the command information, a parameter value identified from the internal sensor information, and a parameter value identified from the external sensor information (Dyer: [0024]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Sugano and Dyer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dyer teaches to detect that the control command is transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command, by comparing at least two of identification information that identifies the mobile object and that is identified from the command information, identification information that identifies the mobile object and that is identified from the internal sensor information, and identification information that identifies the mobile object and that is identified from the external sensor information (Dyer: [0024]).
11. Regarding Claim 6, Sugano and Dyer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sugano teaches to compare three pieces of information that are the command information, the internal sensor information, and the external sensor information (Sugano: [0065], [0066], and [0100] Note that comparing the command information is equivalent to the target route of the vehicle.).
12. Regarding Claim 7, Sugano and Dyer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sugano teaches to when the control command is detected to have been transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command, stop the mobile object moving by transmitting a control command to brake the mobile object (Sugano: [0065] and [0100]).
13. Regarding Claim 8, Sugano teaches a remote control method performed by processing circuitry of a control device configured to remotely control a plurality of mobile objects, the remote control method comprising (Sugano: [0040]):
Generating a control command corresponding to each of the plurality of mobile objects (Sugano: [0037] and [0098]);
Transmitting, to each mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects, the control command corresponding to the mobile object (Sugano: [0113] and [0131]);
Acquiring command information, internal sensor information, and external sensor information (Sugano: [0112], [0113], and [0131]),
The command information being related to the control command (Sugano: [0113] and [0131]),
The internal sensor information being related to a state of movement of the mobile object detected by an internal sensor mounted in the mobile object (Sugano: [0116]),
The external sensor information being related to a state of movement of the mobile object detected by an external sensor located outside of the mobile object (Sugano: [0043] and [0043]).
And detecting that the control command is transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command… by comparing at least two of the command information, the internal sensor information, and the external sensor information (Sugano: [0065] and [0100] Note that comparing internal and external information to determine a vehicle abnormality based on a predetermined threshold is equivalent to detecting the control command transmitted to one of the mobile objects does not correspond with the control command.).
Sugano fails to explicitly teach in a case that includes a case where a communication device removed from one of the plurality of mobile objects is erroneously mounted onto another one of the plurality of mobile objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dyer teaches detecting that the control command is transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command, in a case that includes a case where a communication device removed from one of the plurality of mobile objects is erroneously mounted onto another one of the plurality of mobile objects, by comparing at least two of the command information, the internal sensor information, and the external sensor information (Dyer: [0024] and [0025] Note that identifying the passenger actual destination and changing the vehicle's destination is equivalent to detecting the control command was transmitted to one of the mobile objects not corresponding to the control command. Also, note that the passenger's client computing device is equivalent to the communication device because the passenger's client computing device may be removed and placed in each vehicle the passenger enters.).
Sugano and Dyer are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugano to incorporate the teachings of Dyer to detect that the control command transmitted to one of the mobile objects does not correspond to the control command in a case where a communication device is removed from a mobile object and erroneously mounted onto another mobile object because it provides the benefit of indicating the communication device is in the wrong mobile object, as explicitly explained in [0024] of Dyer. The passenger with the communication device in the wrong vehicle may be determined and a change in commands to the vehicle ensures the passenger will end up at the correct destination.
14. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano (US 20210139017 A1), in view of Dyer (US 20210374623 A1), and in further view of Lin (US 20190232972 A1).
15. Regarding Claim 4, Sugano and Dyer remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Sugano and Dyer fail to explicitly teach to compare the command information and the external sensor information when a current situation matches a situation predetermined as a situation in which it is inappropriate to use the internal sensor information for the comparison.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches to compare the command information and the external sensor information when a current situation matches a situation predetermined as a situation in which it is inappropriate to use the internal sensor information for the comparison (Lin: [0005], [0033], and [0046]).
Sugano, Dyer, and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugano and Dyer to incorporate the teachings of Lin to compare the command information with external sensor information when a current situation matches a predetermined situation in which it is inappropriate to use internal sensor information because it provides the benefit of using the most accurate information to improve the performance and control of the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle and passengers. These improvements are explicitly stated in [0026] and [0032] of Lin.
16. Regarding Claim 5, Sugano and Dyer remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Sugano and Dyer fail to explicitly teach to compare the command information and the internal sensor information when a current situation matches a situation predetermined as a situation in which it is inappropriate to use the external sensor information for the comparison.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches to compare the command information and the internal sensor information when a current situation matches a situation predetermined as a situation in which it is inappropriate to use the external sensor information for the comparison (Lin: [0005], [0022], and [0047]).
Sugano, Dyer, and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugano and Dyer to incorporate the teachings of Lin to compare the command information with internal sensor information when a current situation matches a predetermined situation in which it is inappropriate to use external sensor information because it provides the benefit of using the most accurate information to improve the performance and control of the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle and passengers. These improvements are explicitly stated in [0026] and [0032] of Lin.
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Dyer (US 20210374623 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of detecting the control command transmitted to one of the mobile objects does not correspond to the control command in a case where a communication device removed from one mobile object is erroneously mounted on another mobile object in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0024] and [0025]. Dyer (US 20210374623 A1) teaches identifying the passenger’s actual destination and changing the vehicle's destination based on the passenger entering the wrong vehicle.
18. Sugano (US 20210139017 A1), in view of Dyer (US 20210374623 A1), and in further view of Lin (US 20190232972 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
19. Claims 1-8 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights