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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to communications filed 1/12/2026 Claims 1-15 are original. Claims 16-17 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 8-11, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6108031, King et al. (hereinafter King) in view of U.S. Patent 9129460, McClellan et al. (hereinafter McClellan) further in view of U.S. Patent 8830339, Velarde et al. (hereinafter Velarde) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Claim(s) 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018155159A1 Ueda [English Translation provided] in view of U.S. Patent Application 2018/0364705, Yunoki et al. (hereinafter Yunoki).
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 5 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 5 recites, “the first threshold value is independently set for each of the plurality of types of process candidates”. The plurality of types of process candidates recites in claim 4 are all directed to the video quality increase process. However, the first threshold in claim 1 is directed to an active operation determining process, and not the video quality increase process. Therefore, it is not clear how the first threshold utilized in the active operation determining process applies to each of the plurality of types of process candidates for the video quality increase process.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018155159A1 Ueda [English Translation provided] in view of U.S. Patent Application 2018/0364705, Yunoki et al. (hereinafter Yunoki).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Ueda discloses A video transmission system for transmitting a video from a moving body (i.e. vehicle) that is a target of remote driving by a remote driver to a terminal on a side of the remote driver (Abstract, “The vehicle has an imaging circuit that can photograph at least the surroundings of the advancing direction, and a wireless communication circuit that can transmit a video photographed by the imaging circuit.” Page 2, para4, “transmit detection data [i.e. video; Page 4 para 2, “The detection unit 20 includes a visible light camera 21”. Fig. 6B; page 9 para 2, “a monitoring image 54b displayed on the display unit 54”] obtained by detecting the state of the vehicle and surrounding conditions with a sensor from a vehicle to a remote control center via a network.”),
the video transmission system comprising processing circuitry (Figs 2: 11 control unit; Page 18 para 8, “control unit 11 can be realized by cooperation of hardware resources and software resources, or only by hardware resources…processors”) configured to execute:
an active operation determining process to detect or predict an active operation in which a degree of intensity of a driving operation by the remote driver exceeds a first threshold value (page 19 para 3, 4, 7, “The risk level calculation unit 112 calculates the current risk level of the autonomous driving vehicle 1 based on various parameters such as LDW (Lane Departure Warning), FCW (Forward collision warning), sudden steering, sudden braking, time zone, location, and weather. Is calculated. For example, when any of the events of LDW, FCW, sudden steering, and sudden braking occurs, the
degree of danger increases greatly. Further, the risk level calculation unit 112 may calculate the current risk level of the autonomous driving vehicle 1 based on a risk prediction algorithm generated by artificial intelligence based on deep learning. In this case, the degree of risk can be calculated in consideration of various data detected by the detection unit 20. The degree of risk is defined by a value in the range of 0 to 100, for example.” The degree of risk constitutes a measure of the intensity of deriving conditions, and the calculation of whether that risk exceeds a threshold value constitutes a determination of an active operation); and
a video quality increase process to increase quality of the video transmitted to the terminal (page 5 para 6, “adjust. The transmission data amount adjustment unit 114 increases the data amount of the detection data to be transmitted as the degree of danger is higher or the communication delay amount is smaller.” Page 28 para 1, “The communication unit (131) transmits image data in which the image quality of the image data acquired from the imaging device (21) is adjusted to the remote control device (50) according to the risk level of the autonomous driving vehicle (1)” Page 28 para 5, “may transmit the detection data whose data amount is increased in response to a signal for instructing high quality to the remote control device (50).”).
Ueda does not explicitly disclose during a first period after the active operation is detected or predicted, as compared with during a period other than the first period
Yunoki teaches during a first period after the active operation is detected or predicted, as compared with during a period other than the first period ([0046], “The autonomous vehicle 101 travels by automated driving or remote control” [0054]-[0059], Fig. 8; [0083], “The emergency control execution determining unit 807 compares a predetermined key frame loss rate threshold with the input key frame loss rate, and determines an emergency control method when the key frame loss rate is equal to or larger than the key frame loss rate threshold, and notifies the emergency control signal transmitting unit 808 of the determined emergency control method.” Fig. 11 [0093], “readout timing control unit 804 determines whether the present time point is larger than the next frame readout time point. When it is determined in step 1105 that the present time point is larger than the next frame readout time point (that is, the next frame readout time point has arrived), the flow proceeds to step 1106. When it is determined in step 1105 that the present time point is not larger than the next frame readout time point, the flow proceeds to step 1104. Fig. 18-19; [0103])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yunoki’s temporal windowing of elevated video quality into Urano’s risk-triggered data increase system to provide high-quality video for remote driving accuracy while reducing communication cost.
3. Claim 15 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation as rejected in System claim 1.
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.
4. Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Yunoki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2006/0048193, Jacobs et al. (hereinafter Jacobs).
5. Regarding Claim 2, Ueda in view of Yunoki discloses The video transmission system according to claim 1,
Ueda in view of Yunoki does not explicitly disclose wherein the video quality increase process includes inserting a key frame into the video in response to the active operation being detected or predicted, regardless of a setting of a key frame rate of the video.
Jacobs teaches wherein the video quality increase process includes inserting a key frame into the video in response to the active operation being detected or predicted, regardless of a setting of a key frame rate of the video (abstract, “system includes a video sender-box (10) configured to provide independent video frame insertion on request from one or more receivers (16) capable of requesting independent frame insertion or requesting the avoidance of the usage of lost pictures as reference frames.” [0007], “sensing a condition indicative of a transmission defect to at least one receiver, in response to sensing the condition, generating a request for an independent frame, and in response to the request, inserting an independent video frame into the video stream” [0030], “an I-frame insertion is usually needed to improve overall quality and provide faster error recovery.” [0031]-[0035], “I-frames are inserted in the video only as needed, or at a scene change…rather than occurring at fixed intervals” corresponds to claimed limitation “regardless of a setting of a key frame rate of the video” [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the video quality increase process of Ueda as modified by Yunoki using on-demand key frame insertion technique as taught by Jacobs in order to provide an instantaneous quality boost precisely when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 9-14, 16, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422