DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 6/17/2024.
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 06/17/2024, 04/02/2025 & 11/07/2025 has been received and considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: "control method, device, and recording medium for prioritizing remote operation"
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: "point" appears to be used to mean "point value," according to Pg 19 of the specification which describes an example point value system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshinaga et al (JP2019185279, hereinafter “Yoshinaga,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshinaga describes:
A control method performed by a control device for use in remotely monitoring a plurality of mobile bodies each of which autonomously performs a task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0005 lines 1-5 “One aspect of the present disclosure is a control device (20) that includes a communication device (24) that communicates with a plurality of autonomous vehicles (800) equipped with a communication unit (830), receives commands input by an operator to an interface (120) to remotely control the autonomous vehicles, and remotely controls the autonomous vehicles using the communication device;”)
the control method comprising: receiving, from a first mobile body included in the plurality of mobile bodies, a remote support request indicating a request for remote operation support; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0023 lines 4-6 “In another embodiment, if the self-driving vehicle 800 becomes unable to drive autonomously, the self-driving vehicle 800 may request remote assistance from the control device 20,”)
identifying a second mobile body that is a mobile body different from the first mobile body; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0077 lines 1-4 “FIG. 17 shows a situation in which traffic control using hand signals is being implemented in area X, similar to FIG. However, in FIG. 17, all of the vehicles affected by the traffic control are autonomous vehicles 800,” teaching a situation requiring autonomous control where multiple vehicles are identified)
obtaining first task information about a first task being performed by the first mobile body (Yoshinaga ¶ 0039 lines 1-2 “First, in S410, the autonomous vehicle 800 transmits vehicle information to the control device,”)
and second task information about a second task being performed by the second mobile body; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0020 lines 1-3 “For example, in the area X shown in FIG. 5, when traffic control is being carried out using hand signals as shown in FIG. 6, autonomous vehicles 800A and 800E without drivers require remote control,”)
calculating a priority of the first task and a priority of the second task based on the first task information and the second task information, respectively; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0025 “Next, at S260, the CPU 22 calculates a priority that reflects the operational policy for each autonomous vehicle 800 that requires remote control,”)
and when the priority of the first task is lower than the priority of the second task, transmitting, to the first mobile body, a first control command for remotely operating the first mobile body without hindering the second mobile body from performing the second task. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0083 “When operator 2 allows autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, autonomous vehicle 800B travels by remote control without being assigned an operator. In order to implement such remote control, the CPU 22 stores the operations input by the operator 1 to the autonomous vehicle 800A1 in the storage device 26. Then, when operator 2 gives permission for autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, CPU 22 calls up the operation stored in storage device 26 and transmits it to autonomous vehicle 800B. In this way, autonomous vehicle 800B can travel the same route as autonomous vehicle 800A and be remotely controlled to travel without being assigned an operator,” teaching a situation where a higher priority vehicle (Autonomous vehicle 800A commanded first, so higher priority) goes about its task while a lower priority vehicle (800B) is commanded to move without interfering with the higher priority vehicle, and ¶ 0006 “According to this embodiment, the work time and priority required for remote control are calculated, the processing order is determined based on the work time and priority, and the remote control work is assigned to the operator in accordance with the processing order, thereby realizing smooth traffic flow” further teaches not impeding tasks (smooth traffic flow))
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshinaga describes the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Yoshinaga further describes:
wherein the first task information includes a type of the remote support request, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0043 “When remote control is performed, the control device 20 issues instructions regarding at least one of the above steps. Depending on which process is instructed, it is classified into approval type, correction type, instruction/presentation type, and remote control type. In this embodiment, the approval type is adopted. In other embodiments, the device may be of the corrective, instruction /prompt, or remote control type.”)
a state of execution of the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0093 “The fourth item is the waiting time of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 800. In other words, it is the cumulative value of the time that the autonomous vehicle 800 is unable to travel because it is waiting for remote control. This cumulative value is reset to zero when the passenger changes. Taking this into consideration can reduce passenger discomfort. In other embodiments, an average value or the like may be used instead of the integrated value,” waiting time of passengers indicating whether there are passengers onboard or not)
information of whether time for the first task has been designated, a status of the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0094 “The fifth item is the delay of the currently predicted arrival time relative to the arrival time predicted at the time of boarding. The greater this delay, the higher the priority. By taking this item into consideration, it will be possible to increase the on-time operation rate,” teaching both whether time has been designated (arrival time predicted at the time of boarding), and delay status (currently predicted arrival time relative to arrival time predicted at the time of boarding))
and an execution fee for the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0091 “The second item is the amount paid by the passengers of the self-driving car 800. Passengers can pay the amount to the administrator of the control device 20 using their own smartphone or other device. The more you pay, the higher the priority. Taking this item into consideration will improve the service quality of the autonomous vehicle 800 as a shared car.”)
and the second task information includes the type of the remote support request, a state of execution of the second task, information of whether time for the second task has been designated, a status of the second task, and an execution fee for the second task. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0058 lines 6-10 “Furthermore, in area Z of Figure 8, autonomous vehicles 800I, 800J, 800K, and 800L are grouped together because they share a common cause for needing remote control. The fact that the cause of the need for remote control is common is identified from the location information included in the vehicle information of each of the automatically driven vehicle 800,” teaching multiple vehicles sending the above vehicle information)
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshinaga describes the elements of claim 2 as shown above. Yoshinaga further describes:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task, the priority of the first task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with a predetermined rule to each of elements that are the type of the remote support request, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0089 “In this embodiment, the priority of each autonomous vehicle 800 is determined by taking into account the following six items: In other embodiments, the priority may be determined by taking into consideration at least one of the following six items,” and ¶ 0072 lines 1-5 “In this embodiment, the cost calculation shown in FIG. 15 is performed, and the tasks are assigned in the order that minimizes the cost. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 15, the delay time from when a certain task occurs until the task is started is multiplied by the priority of that task to obtain the cost of that task, and the costs of all tasks are added up. The higher the priority value, the higher the priority,” teaching that items are assigned priority values in determining the priority)
the state of execution of the first task, the information of whether the time for the first task has been designated, the status of the first task, and the execution fee for the first task, (Yoshinaga as previously described)
the point including zero, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0093 lines 1-4 “The fourth item is the waiting time of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 800. In other words, it is the cumulative value of the time that the autonomous vehicle 800 is unable to travel because it is waiting for remote control. This cumulative value is reset to zero when the passenger changes,” teaching that the priority values can be set to zero)
and in the calculating of the priority of the second task, the priority of the second task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to each of elements that are the type of the remote support request, the state of execution of the second task, the information of whether the time for the second task has been designated, the status of the second task, and the execution fee for the second task, the point including zero. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0056 “According to this embodiment, the processing order is determined based on the priority and work time that reflects the operation policy. Therefore, when the number of autonomous vehicles 800 requiring remote control is greater than the number of operators available to work, operators can be assigned in a way that minimizes the impact on traffic flow,” teaching priority calculation for multiple vehicles, in accordance with the above criteria)
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshinaga describes the elements of claim 2 as shown above. Yoshinaga further describes:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task, the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task are calculated further using, as the first task information and the second task information, predicted remote support time that is remote support time predicted from time taken to handle a previous remote support request. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0024 “Next, the CPU 22 proceeds to S231 and calculates the operation time required for the remote control,” teaching that items are assigned priority values in determining the priority and ¶ 0025 “Next, at S260, the CPU 22 calculates a priority that reflects the operational policy for each autonomous vehicle 800 that requires remote control,”)
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshinaga describes the elements of claim 1 as shown above. Yoshinaga further describes:
when the priority of the first task is higher than the priority of the second task, (i) transmitting, to the first mobile body, a second control command for remote operation that has been created based on the remote support request; and (ii) transmitting, to the second mobile body, a third control command to cause the second mobile body to autonomously perform the second task without hindering control of the first mobile body based on the remote support request. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0083 “When operator 2 allows autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, autonomous vehicle 800B travels by remote control without being assigned an operator. In order to implement such remote control, the CPU 22 stores the operations input by the operator 1 to the autonomous vehicle 800A1 in the storage device 26. Then, when operator 2 gives permission for autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, CPU 22 calls up the operation stored in storage device 26 and transmits it to autonomous vehicle 800B. In this way, autonomous vehicle 800B can travel the same route as autonomous vehicle 800A and be remotely controlled to travel without being assigned an operator,” teaching a situation where a higher priority vehicle (Autonomous vehicle 800A commanded first, so higher priority) is commanded by an operator while a lower priority vehicle (800B) is commanded to move without interfering with the higher priority vehicle, and ¶ 0006 “According to this embodiment, the work time and priority required for remote control are calculated, the processing order is determined based on the work time and priority, and the remote control work is assigned to the operator in accordance with the processing order, thereby realizing smooth traffic flow” further teaches not impeding tasks (smooth traffic flow))
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshinaga teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Yoshinaga further teaches:
before obtaining the first task information and the second task information, determining whether a total number of operators capable of remote operation exceeds a threshold value; and obtaining the first task information and the second task information when the total number of operators is less than or equal to the threshold value. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0036 “In this embodiment, as a general rule, if there is an autonomous vehicle 800 that requires remote control and there is an operator who has not been assigned, assignment will be performed. Therefore, if there are seven assignable operators, an operator can be assigned to all of the autonomous vehicles 800 stopped in areas X, Y, and Z. However, since there are not always seven or more operators available for assignment, if the number of autonomous vehicles 800 requiring remote control is greater than the number of operators available to work, operators will be assigned according to the processing order determined as described above,” teaching that priority assignment only occurs when the available number of operators is less than the number of vehicles requiring remote control (a threshold value))
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshinaga describes:
A control device for use in remotely monitoring a plurality of mobile bodies each of which autonomously performs a task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0005 lines 1-5 “One aspect of the present disclosure is a control device (20) that includes a communication device (24) that communicates with a plurality of autonomous vehicles (800) equipped with a communication unit (830), receives commands input by an operator to an interface (120) to remotely control the autonomous vehicles, and remotely controls the autonomous vehicles using the communication device;”)
the control device comprising: a request acceptor that receives, from a first mobile body included in the plurality of mobile bodies, a remote support request indicating a request for remote operation support; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0023 lines 4-6 “In another embodiment, if the self-driving vehicle 800 becomes unable to drive autonomously, the self-driving vehicle 800 may request remote assistance from the control device 20,”)
a mobile body identification unit that identifies a second mobile body that is a mobile body different from the first mobile body; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0077 lines 1-4 “FIG. 17 shows a situation in which traffic control using hand signals is being implemented in area X, similar to FIG. However, in FIG. 17, all of the vehicles affected by the traffic control are autonomous vehicles 800,” teaching a situation requiring autonomous control where multiple vehicles are identified)
a task priority calculator that obtains first task information about a first task being performed by the first mobile body (Yoshinaga ¶ 0039 lines 1-2 “First, in S410, the autonomous vehicle 800 transmits vehicle information to the control device,”)
and second task information about a second task being performed by the second mobile body, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0020 lines 1-3 “For example, in the area X shown in FIG. 5, when traffic control is being carried out using hand signals as shown in FIG. 6, autonomous vehicles 800A and 800E without drivers require remote control,”)
and calculates a priority of the first task and a priority of the second task based on the first task information and the second task information, respectively; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0025 “Next, at S260, the CPU 22 calculates a priority that reflects the operational policy for each autonomous vehicle 800 that requires remote control,”)
and a control command creator that when the priority of the first task is lower than the priority of the second task, transmits, to the first mobile body, a first control command for remotely operating the first mobile body without hindering the second mobile body from performing the second task. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0083 “When operator 2 allows autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, autonomous vehicle 800B travels by remote control without being assigned an operator. In order to implement such remote control, the CPU 22 stores the operations input by the operator 1 to the autonomous vehicle 800A1 in the storage device 26. Then, when operator 2 gives permission for autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, CPU 22 calls up the operation stored in storage device 26 and transmits it to autonomous vehicle 800B. In this way, autonomous vehicle 800B can travel the same route as autonomous vehicle 800A and be remotely controlled to travel without being assigned an operator,” teaching a situation where a higher priority vehicle (Autonomous vehicle 800A commanded first, so higher priority) goes about its task while a lower priority vehicle (800B) is commanded to move without interfering with the higher priority vehicle, and ¶ 0006 “According to this embodiment, the work time and priority required for remote control are calculated, the processing order is determined based on the work time and priority, and the remote control work is assigned to the operator in accordance with the processing order, thereby realizing smooth traffic flow” further teaches not impeding tasks (smooth traffic flow))
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshinaga describes:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to perform
a control method that is performed by a control device for use in remotely monitoring a plurality of mobile bodies each of which autonomously performs a task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0005 lines 1-5 “One aspect of the present disclosure is a control device (20) that includes a communication device (24) that communicates with a plurality of autonomous vehicles (800) equipped with a communication unit (830), receives commands input by an operator to an interface (120) to remotely control the autonomous vehicles, and remotely controls the autonomous vehicles using the communication device;”)
the program causing the computer to perform: receiving, from a first mobile body included in the plurality of mobile bodies, a remote support request indicating a request for remote operation support; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0023 lines 4-6 “In another embodiment, if the self-driving vehicle 800 becomes unable to drive autonomously, the self-driving vehicle 800 may request remote assistance from the control device 20,”)
identifying a second mobile body that is a mobile body different from the first mobile body; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0077 lines 1-4 “FIG. 17 shows a situation in which traffic control using hand signals is being implemented in area X, similar to FIG. However, in FIG. 17, all of the vehicles affected by the traffic control are autonomous vehicles 800,” teaching a situation requiring autonomous control where multiple vehicles are identified)
obtaining first task information about a first task being performed by the first mobile body (Yoshinaga ¶ 0039 lines 1-2 “First, in S410, the autonomous vehicle 800 transmits vehicle information to the control device,”)
and second task information about a second task being performed by the second mobile body; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0020 lines 1-3 “For example, in the area X shown in FIG. 5, when traffic control is being carried out using hand signals as shown in FIG. 6, autonomous vehicles 800A and 800E without drivers require remote control,”)
calculating a priority of the first task and a priority of the second task based on the first task information and the second task information, respectively; (Yoshinaga ¶ 0025 “Next, at S260, the CPU 22 calculates a priority that reflects the operational policy for each autonomous vehicle 800 that requires remote control,”)
and when the priority of the first task is lower than the priority of the second task, transmitting, to the first mobile body, a first control command for remotely operating the first mobile body without hindering the second mobile body from performing the second task. (Yoshinaga ¶ 0083 “When operator 2 allows autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, autonomous vehicle 800B travels by remote control without being assigned an operator. In order to implement such remote control, the CPU 22 stores the operations input by the operator 1 to the autonomous vehicle 800A1 in the storage device 26. Then, when operator 2 gives permission for autonomous vehicle 800B2 to travel in the opposite lane, CPU 22 calls up the operation stored in storage device 26 and transmits it to autonomous vehicle 800B. In this way, autonomous vehicle 800B can travel the same route as autonomous vehicle 800A and be remotely controlled to travel without being assigned an operator,” teaching a situation where a higher priority vehicle (Autonomous vehicle 800A commanded first, so higher priority) goes about its task while a lower priority vehicle (800B) is commanded to move without interfering with the higher priority vehicle, and ¶ 0006 “According to this embodiment, the work time and priority required for remote control are calculated, the processing order is determined based on the work time and priority, and the remote control work is assigned to the operator in accordance with the processing order, thereby realizing smooth traffic flow” further teaches not impeding tasks (smooth traffic flow))
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga in view of Pedersen et al (US 20190294159, hereinafter “Pedersen”).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshinaga teaches the elements of claim 2 as described above. Yoshinaga does not teach:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task, the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task are calculated further using a total number of previous remote support requests as the first task information and the second task information.
Within the same field of endeavor as Yoshinaga, Pedersen teaches:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task, the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task are calculated further using a total number of previous remote support requests as the first task information and the second task information. (Pedersen ¶ 0157 lines 1-9 “the vehicles are ranked according to a level of urgency for remote support. In an implementation, the vehicles in the first state display or the second state display or both are ranked according to the level of urgency. The level of urgency for the remote support can be determined based on the state data or user inputs or other types of aggregated data (e.g., time of day, typical urgency levels for similar vehicles garnered by analyzing historical data, etc.),” teaching urgency ranking (priority) determined based on aggregated historical data (analogous to a total of previous requests))
Yoshinaga and Pedersen are both considered analogous because they both relate to remote vehicle control prioritization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the priority determination of Yoshinaga with addition of the urgency ranking determination based on aggregated historical data of Pedersen. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by more effectively organizing state data to efficiently route vehicles in transit, and improving remote control to reduce disruptions in a transportation network (Pedersen ¶ 0170).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshinaga teaches the elements of claim 2 as described above. Yoshinaga does not teach:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task, the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task are calculated further using operator handling time that is accumulated time taken to handle a previous remote support request in each of the first mobile body and the second mobile body.
Within the same field of endeavor as Yoshinaga, Pedersen teaches:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task, the priority of the first task and the priority of the second task are calculated further using operator handling time that is accumulated time taken to handle a previous remote support request in each of the first mobile body and the second mobile body. (Pedersen ¶ 0091 lines 1-9 “The vehicle manager assignment queue 5050 is a representation of the vehicles that are assigned to a vehicle manager. The vehicles can be assigned to the vehicle manager assignment queue 5050 by the fleet manager or by the vehicle managers themselves or automatically using machine learning techniques. For example, one vehicle manager may realize that they are monitoring too many vehicles and can assign a subset of those vehicles to another vehicle manager that is determined to have additional monitoring capacity. As shown in FIG. 5 the vehicle indicators (e.g., the vehicle indicator 5040) within the vehicle manager assignment queue 5050 are assigned to the vehicle manager associated with the vehicle manager indicator 5030 “Larry.” This vehicle manager indicator can represent the real name of the vehicle manager or a username or another identifier,” and ¶ 0163 “At operation 12050, a workload is allocated or balanced or optimized between the first level control stations by an operator (such as a fleet manager) that assigns the vehicles using the state indicators of the second state display. In an implementation, the assignment is automated based upon a detection by the system that there is an imbalance between the workload or one of the vehicle managers is in urgent need of help (e.g., the vehicle manager is monitoring too many vehicles or one of the vehicles requires time-consuming support and thus the other vehicles should be reassigned for a predetermined time period). The workload can be based on any of the state data, external data, historical data, and the distribution of the vehicles to the first level control stations” teaching load balancing between operators and urgency ranking (priority) determined based on aggregated operator historical data (analogous to a total operator time))
Yoshinaga and Pedersen are both considered analogous because they both relate to remote vehicle control prioritization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the priority determination of Yoshinaga with addition of the urgency ranking determination based on aggregated historical operator data of Pedersen. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by more effectively organizing state data to efficiently route vehicles in transit, and improving remote control to reduce disruptions in a transportation network (Pedersen ¶ 0170).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga in view of Pedersen and further in view of Golston et al (US 20180251122, hereinafter “Golston”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yoshinaga and Pedersen teaches the elements of claim 4 as described above. Yoshinaga further teaches:
[…] the priority of the first task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with a predetermined rule to the type of the remote support request, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0043 “When remote control is performed, the control device 20 issues instructions regarding at least one of the above steps. Depending on which process is instructed, it is classified into approval type, correction type, instruction/presentation type, and remote control type. In this embodiment, the approval type is adopted. In other embodiments, the device may be of the corrective, instruction /prompt, or remote control type,” and ¶ 0089 “In this embodiment, the priority of each autonomous vehicle 800 is determined by taking into account the following six items: In other embodiments, the priority may be determined by taking into consideration at least one of the following six items,” and ¶ 0072 lines 1-5 “In this embodiment, the cost calculation shown in FIG. 15 is performed, and the tasks are assigned in the order that minimizes the cost. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 15, the delay time from when a certain task occurs until the task is started is multiplied by the priority of that task to obtain the cost of that task, and the costs of all tasks are added up. The higher the priority value, the higher the priority,” teaching that items are assigned priority values in determining the priority))
the point including zero, […] (Yoshinaga ¶ 0093 lines 1-4 “The fourth item is the waiting time of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 800. In other words, it is the cumulative value of the time that the autonomous vehicle 800 is unable to travel because it is waiting for remote control. This cumulative value is reset to zero when the passenger changes,” teaching that the priority values can be set to zero)
[…] the priority of the first task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to each of elements that are the type of the remote support request, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0089 “In this embodiment, the priority of each autonomous vehicle 800 is determined by taking into account the following six items: In other embodiments, the priority may be determined by taking into consideration at least one of the following six items,” and ¶ 0072 lines 1-5 “In this embodiment, the cost calculation shown in FIG. 15 is performed, and the tasks are assigned in the order that minimizes the cost. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 15, the delay time from when a certain task occurs until the task is started is multiplied by the priority of that task to obtain the cost of that task, and the costs of all tasks are added up. The higher the priority value, the higher the priority,” teaching that items are assigned priority values in determining the priority)
the state of execution of the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0093 “The fourth item is the waiting time of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 800. In other words, it is the cumulative value of the time that the autonomous vehicle 800 is unable to travel because it is waiting for remote control. This cumulative value is reset to zero when the passenger changes. Taking this into consideration can reduce passenger discomfort. In other embodiments, an average value or the like may be used instead of the integrated value,” waiting time of passengers indicating whether there are passengers onboard or not)
the information of whether the time for the first task has been designated, the status of the first task, information of whether time for the first task has been designated, a status of the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0094 “The fifth item is the delay of the currently predicted arrival time relative to the arrival time predicted at the time of boarding. The greater this delay, the higher the priority. By taking this item into consideration, it will be possible to increase the on-time operation rate,” teaching both whether time has been designated (arrival time predicted at the time of boarding), and delay status (currently predicted arrival time relative to arrival time predicted at the time of boarding))
and the execution fee for the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0091 “The second item is the amount paid by the passengers of the self-driving car 800. Passengers can pay the amount to the administrator of the control device 20 using their own smartphone or other device. The more you pay, the higher the priority. Taking this item into consideration will improve the service quality of the autonomous vehicle 800 as a shared car.”)
the point including zero, […] (Yoshinaga as previously described)
[…] the priority of the second task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to the type of the remote support request, the point including zero, […] (Yoshinaga as previously described)
[…] the priority of the second task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to each of elements that are the type of the remote support request, the state of execution of the second task, the information of whether the time for the second task has been designated, the status of the second task, and the execution fee for the second task, the point including zero. (Yoshinaga as previously described)
Yoshinaga does not teach:
wherein the first task information and the second task information further include a first count and a second count each of which is the total number of previous remote support requests, in the calculating of the priority of the first task, when the first count included in the first task information exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] and when the first count included in the first task information is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
[…] and in the calculating of the priority of the second task, when the second count included in the second task information exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] and when the second count included in the second task information is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Yoshinaga, Pedersen teaches:
wherein the first task information and the second task information further include a first count and a second count each of which is the total number of previous remote support requests, in the calculating of the priority of the first task, […] (Pedersen ¶ 0157 lines 1-9 “the vehicles are ranked according to a level of urgency for remote support. In an implementation, the vehicles in the first state display or the second state display or both are ranked according to the level of urgency. The level of urgency for the remote support can be determined based on the state data or user inputs or other types of aggregated data (e.g., time of day, typical urgency levels for similar vehicles garnered by analyzing historical data, etc.),” teaching urgency ranking (priority) determined based on aggregated historical data (analogous to a total of previous requests))
Yoshinaga and Pedersen are both considered analogous because they both relate to remote vehicle control prioritization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the priority determination of Yoshinaga with addition of the urgency ranking determination based on aggregated historical data of Pedersen. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by more effectively organizing state data to efficiently route vehicles in transit, and improving remote control to reduce disruptions in a transportation network (Pedersen ¶ 0170).
The combination of Yoshinaga and Pedersen does not teach:
[…] when the first count included in the first task information exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] and when the first count included in the first task information is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
[…] and in the calculating of the priority of the second task, when the second count included in the second task information exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] and when the second count included in the second task information is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Yoshinaga and Pedersen, Golston teaches:
[…] when the first count included in the first task information exceeds a threshold value, […] and when the first count included in the first task information is less than or equal to the threshold value, […] and in the calculating of the priority of the second task, when the second count included in the second task information exceeds a threshold value, […] and when the second count included in the second task information is less than or equal to the threshold value, […] (Golston ¶ 0092 lines 1-3 “In some configurations, the occupant priority may be determined based on one or more preference thresholds (e.g., minimum and/or maximum preference thresholds),” teaching the use of various value thresholds for determining vehicle control priorities, and ¶ 0180 lines 1-12 “In some configurations, a priority combiner 975 may be implemented and/or utilized to combine one or more obtained 971 priority states and one or more measured 973 occupant priorities. For example, an obtained 971 (e.g., directly inputted) occupant priority may add to or override a measured 973 occupant priority. […] It should be noted that occupant priority 955 may be characterized in a variety of ways (e.g., numerical scale, priority type, etc.),” teaching a priority override to use different priority calculations.)
Yoshinaga, Pedersen, and Golston are all considered analogous because they all relate to remote vehicle control prioritization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the priority determination of Yoshinaga and the urgency ranking determination based on aggregated historical data of Pedersen with the addition of Golston’s use of minimum or maximum thresholds in determining various priority states. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system ability to respond to different situations.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yoshinaga and Pedersen teaches the elements of claim 8 as described above. Yoshinaga further teaches:
[…] the priority of the first task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with a predetermined rule to […] the type of the remote support request, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0043 “When remote control is performed, the control device 20 issues instructions regarding at least one of the above steps. Depending on which process is instructed, it is classified into approval type, correction type, instruction/presentation type, and remote control type. In this embodiment, the approval type is adopted. In other embodiments, the device may be of the corrective, instruction /prompt, or remote control type,” and ¶ 0089 “In this embodiment, the priority of each autonomous vehicle 800 is determined by taking into account the following six items: In other embodiments, the priority may be determined by taking into consideration at least one of the following six items,” and ¶ 0072 lines 1-5 “In this embodiment, the cost calculation shown in FIG. 15 is performed, and the tasks are assigned in the order that minimizes the cost. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 15, the delay time from when a certain task occurs until the task is started is multiplied by the priority of that task to obtain the cost of that task, and the costs of all tasks are added up. The higher the priority value, the higher the priority,” teaching that items are assigned priority values in determining the priority))
the state of execution of the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0093 “The fourth item is the waiting time of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 800. In other words, it is the cumulative value of the time that the autonomous vehicle 800 is unable to travel because it is waiting for remote control. This cumulative value is reset to zero when the passenger changes. Taking this into consideration can reduce passenger discomfort. In other embodiments, an average value or the like may be used instead of the integrated value,” waiting time of passengers indicating whether there are passengers onboard or not)
the information of whether the time for the first task has been designated, the status of the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0094 “The fifth item is the delay of the currently predicted arrival time relative to the arrival time predicted at the time of boarding. The greater this delay, the higher the priority. By taking this item into consideration, it will be possible to increase the on-time operation rate,” teaching both whether time has been designated (arrival time predicted at the time of boarding), and delay status (currently predicted arrival time relative to arrival time predicted at the time of boarding))
and the execution fee for the first task, (Yoshinaga ¶ 0091 “The second item is the amount paid by the passengers of the self-driving car 800. Passengers can pay the amount to the administrator of the control device 20 using their own smartphone or other device. The more you pay, the higher the priority. Taking this item into consideration will improve the service quality of the autonomous vehicle 800 as a shared car.”)
the point including zero, […] (Yoshinaga ¶ 0093 lines 1-4 “The fourth item is the waiting time of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 800. In other words, it is the cumulative value of the time that the autonomous vehicle 800 is unable to travel because it is waiting for remote control. This cumulative value is reset to zero when the passenger changes,” teaching that the priority values can be set to zero)
[…] the priority of the first task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to each of elements that are the type of the remote support request, the state of execution of the first task, the information of whether the time for the first task has been designated, the status of the first task, and the execution fee for the first task, the point including zero, […] (Yoshinaga as previously described)
[…] the priority of the second task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to each of elements that are […] the type of the remote support request, the state of execution of the second task, the information of whether the time for the second task has been designated, the status of the second task, and the execution fee for the second task, the point including zero, […] (Yoshinaga as previously described)
[…] the priority of the second task is calculated using a point assigned in accordance with the predetermined rule to each of elements that are the type of the remote support request, the state of execution of the second task, the information of whether the time for the second task has been designated, the status of the second task, and the execution fee for the second task, the point including zero. (Yoshinaga as previously described)
Yoshinaga does not teach:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task, first operator handling time is obtained, the first operator handling time being accumulated time taken to handle a previous remote support request,
when the first operator handling time obtained exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…]the first operator handling time, […]
[…] and when the first operator handling time obtained is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
[…] and in the calculating of the priority of the second task, second operator handling time is obtained, the second operator handling time being accumulated time taken to handle a previous remote support request,
when second operator handling time obtained exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] the second operator handling time, […]
[…] and when the second operator handling time obtained is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Yoshinaga, Pedersen teaches:
wherein in the calculating of the priority of the first task, first operator handling time is obtained, the first operator handling time being accumulated time taken to handle a previous remote support request, […] the first operator handling time, […] and in the calculating of the priority of the second task, second operator handling time is obtained, the second operator handling time being accumulated time taken to handle a previous remote support request, […] the second operator handling time, […] (Pedersen ¶ 0157 lines 1-9 “the vehicles are ranked according to a level of urgency for remote support. In an implementation, the vehicles in the first state display or the second state display or both are ranked according to the level of urgency. The level of urgency for the remote support can be determined based on the state data or user inputs or other types of aggregated data (e.g., time of day, typical urgency levels for similar vehicles garnered by analyzing historical data, etc.),” teaching urgency ranking (priority) determined based on aggregated historical data (analogous to a total of previous requests))
Yoshinaga and Pedersen are both considered analogous because they both relate to remote vehicle control prioritization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the priority determination of Yoshinaga with addition of the urgency ranking determination based on aggregated historical operator data of Pedersen. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by more effectively organizing state data to efficiently route vehicles in transit, and improving remote control to reduce disruptions in a transportation network (Pedersen ¶ 0170).
The combination of Yoshinaga and Pedersen does not teach:
[…] when the first operator handling time obtained exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] and when the first operator handling time obtained is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
[…] when second operator handling time obtained exceeds a threshold value, […]
[…] and when the second operator handling time obtained is less than or equal to the threshold value, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Yoshinaga and Pedersen, Golston teaches:
[…