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 6/23/2026 Claims 1-5, 15-16 are amended. Claims 6-14 are original. Claim 17 is previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 15 and claims 3 and 4 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) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 U.S. Patent Application 2018/0364705, Yunoki et al. (hereinafter Yunoki) further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2010/0265344 Velarde et al. (hereinafter Velarde) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2011/0265130, Shang.
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, 3, 4, 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) further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2010/0265344 Velarde et al. (hereinafter Velarde) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2011/0265130, Shang.
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,
wherein the video quality increase process includes at least one of:
setting a frame rate of the video during the first period to be higher than that in the period other than the first period; and
setting a key frame rate of the video during the first period to be higher than that in the 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.
Ueda in view of Yunoki do not explicitly disclose wherein the video quality increase process includes at least one of:
setting a frame rate of the video during the first period to be higher than that in the period other than the first period; and
setting a key frame rate of the video during the first period to be higher than that in the period other than the first period.
Further, Velarde teaches setting a frame rate of the video during the first period to be higher than that in the period other than the first period (Abstract, “a motion detection unit that detects fast motion in the buffered digital video data, that stores digital video data from the video sensor in the video storage after detecting the fast motion”; [0026], “video sensor controller 14 causes video sensor 12 to capture video at a normal frame rate (e.g., 15 fps or 30 fps) and at a fast frame rate such as greater than 30 fps.” [0005], “The digital video recording device may begin recording at the fast frame rate upon detecting motion or a scene change in a video scene.” [0038], “Fast frame rate control unit 18 may determine that motion has occurred, triggering recording, when the motion vector data exceeds a predetermined threshold value.”);
Further, Shang teaches setting a key frame rate of the video during the first period to be higher than that in the period other than the first period (Abstract, “sending a request for adjusting a video key frame generating frequency to the streaming media server… the streaming media server determines whether to adjust the video key frame generating frequency… then adjusts the video key frame generating frequency according to the request.” [0033], “a parameter Key-Frame-Span which is for representing the time of request for a key frame generating frequency.” [0034], “Key-Frame-Span: 5, which represents that a key frame is generated every 5s on average.”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implent Ueda’s risk-triggered increase in video data amount/quality ( as modified by Yunoki’s first-period windowing) using Velarde’s triggered increase in frame rate and/Shang’s triggered increase in key frame generating frequency, sine this amounts to no more than the use of known techniques (frame rate adjustment per Velarde; key frame rate adjustment per Shang) to improve a similar system (a condition-triggered video quality increase system) in the same way, with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Velarde’s triggered frame rate increase with Ueda/Yunoki in order to reduce motion blur and capture greater motion detail precisely when heightened video fidelity is needed for remote driving accuracy. One of ordinary skill would additionally or alternatively have been motivated to combine Shang’s key frame generating frequency adjustment with Ueda/Yunoki in order to allow the remote driver’s terminal to display clear video images without delay during the risk-triggered first period, as taught by Shang (summary).
3. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, as claims 3 and 4 recite the same frame rate and key frame rate limitations now show to be obvious in view of Ueda, Yunoki, Velarde, and Shang.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Yunoki further in view of Velerde further in view of Shang 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 further in view of Velerde further in view of Shang discloses The video transmission system according to claim 1,
Ueda in view of Yunoki in view of Velerde further in view of Shang 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 the key frame rate of the video.
Further, 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 the 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 5-8, 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
Prosecution Insights