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 . Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 4/16/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 102. filed on 4/16/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 4/16/26.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of additional citations to the art of record below.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 recite the following limitations:
collect, from the mobile object, determination information representing determination of the mobile object in response to the instruction information transmitted to the mobile object, wherein the determination information relates to at least one of recognition information for each traveling scene, plan information planned by the mobile object, or control command information commanding traveling of the mobile object; and
acquire a time gap between, as a transition timing of the DDT by the mobile object, an instruction timing represented by the instruction information and a determination timing represented by the determination information, wherein the instruction timing is a transition timing for transitioning the mobile object from the current DDT to another future DDT, and the determination timing is a timing at which the mobile object executed the determination in response to the instruction information or a timing indicated by a physical quantity of motion that is at least one of vehicle speed, steering angle, or acceleration/deceleration of traveling executed in response to the instruction information; and
It is unclear as to what specifically is intended by “determination information” and “determination timing” as the “determination information” simply relates to scene recognition information, plan information, or control command information which is then utilized to determine the determination timing where any of that determination information is determined by the mobile object. Based on the additional information in the applicant’s specification, determination timing is not explicitly defined but simply a time represented by determination information which is broadly defined as “representing determination of the mobile object” (Specification ¶24-31) which broadly includes any information gathered or generated at the mobile object.
Additionally unclear is what is actually included in the “instruction information” and the related “instruction timing”. The “instruction information” is only referred to in the applicant’s specification as being “generated ... according to an instruction from an operator in response to the assistance request” (Specification ¶24-31) which includes no actual details regarding what is included in the instruction information, which is then utilized to determine “instruction timing” which appears to be cyclically referring to instruction information regarding transition timing without actually disclosing what this information is or where it is actually generated:
“instruction information regarding at least the contents determined regarding the instruction timing among whether the transition is necessary, the type of destination DDT, and the instruction timing to as the transition timing, for transitioning the assisted mobile object 2 from the current DDT to another future DDT” (Specification ¶65)
Without explicit recitation to what is being included in the different information elements and how that is specifically related to the associated timing, the claims are indefinite broadly covering all information related to autonomous/semiautonomous/remote control vehicle operation.
Additional unclear “plan information”, “behavior information”, and other general recitations of “information...representing”, as disclosed in claims 1-10, do not finitely disclose the invention as claimed leaving the claims indefinite.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Magzimof et al. (US 2020/0062267).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, Magzimof discloses a vehicle teleoperator ranking and selection system including a remote assistance system/method/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for remotely assisting automated driving of a mobile object, the remote assistance system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing program instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to at least (Abstract and ¶8):
acquire, from the mobile object, an assistance request that is a request from the mobile object (¶70 and Fig. 6 – element 601);
generate instruction information indicating a dynamic driving task (DDT) of the mobile object according to an instruction from an operator in response to the assistance request (¶65, ¶70 and Fig. 6 – element 606 and 607 operator confirmation to enable teleoperation session and subsequent operator controls corresponding to the recited instruction from an operator in response to the assistance request for a specific maneuver or navigation task corresponding to the recited a DDT);
transmit the instruction information to the mobile object (¶23 - real-time control data to the vehicle 102 received via the remote support terminal 110 to enable the teleoperator remotely drive the vehicle);
collect, from the mobile object, determination information representing determination of the mobile object in response to the instruction information transmitted to the mobile object, wherein the determination information relates to at least one of recognition information for each traveling scene, plan information planned by the mobile object, or control command information commanding traveling of the mobile object (¶66-70 and Figs. 4-6 – upon operator fulfilment of remote support requests corresponding to the recited in response to the instruction information transmitted to the mobile object the vehicle transmits real-time video feed corresponding to the recited recognition information for each traveling scene as well as telemetry information corresponding to the recited control command information commanding traveling of the mobile object. The “at least one of” claim element requires only one of the following to be present to disclose the claim as written); and
acquire a time gap between, as a transition timing of the DDT by the mobile object, an instruction timing represented by the instruction information and a determination timing represented by the determination information, wherein the instruction timing is a transition timing for transitioning the mobile object from the current DDT to another future DDT, and the determination timing is a timing at which the mobile object executed the determination in response to the instruction information or a timing indicated by a physical quantity of motion that is at least one of vehicle speed, steering angle, or acceleration/deceleration of traveling executed in response to the instruction information (¶39-49 - Temporal safety margin t.sub.s corresponding to the recited time gap may be defined as the time necessary to cover the distance D to the closest obstacle intercepting the trajectory of the vehicle 102 under the assumption that the kinematic state of the vehicle 102 remains unperturbed by subsequent control inputs where the subsequent control inputs corresponding to the recited instruction timing and the time necessary to cover the distance D corresponding to the recited determination timing based on operator speed/steering/acceleration/deceleration inputs responsive to the instruction information identifying an object where the timing between subsequent operator controls corresponding to the recited transition timing between subsequent DDTs); and
output evaluation information that has evaluated the operator based on the acquired time gap (¶30 and ¶39-49 – computing operator reliability score corresponding to the recited evaluation information based on average temporal safety margins applied to operators based on their remote support controls).
Regarding claim 4, Magzimof further discloses wherein collecting the behavior information includes collecting the behavior information representing the actual trajectory on which the mobile object imposes a constraint for the plan information (¶44-46 – predetermined conditions regarding temporal safety margins corresponding to the recited constraints applied to the actual trajectories including potential operator reaction time corresponding to the recited constraint for the plan information).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 8, and 10, Magzimof further discloses a remote assistance system/method/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for remotely assisting automated driving of a mobile object, the remote assistance system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing program instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to at least (Abstract and ¶8):
acquire, from the mobile object, an assistance request that is a request from the mobile object (¶70 and Fig. 6 – element 601);
generate instruction information indicating a dynamic driving task (DDT) of the mobile object according to an instruction from an operator in response to the assistance request (¶70 and Fig. 6 – element 606 and 607 operator confirmation to enable teleoperation session and subsequent operator controls corresponding to the recited instruction from an operator in response to the assistance request for a specific maneuver or navigation task corresponding to the recited a DDT);
transmit the instruction information to the mobile object (¶23 - real-time control data to the vehicle 102 received via the remote support terminal 110 to enable the teleoperator remotely drive the vehicle);
collect plan information representing a plan provided by the mobile object in response to the instruction information transmitted to the mobile object, wherein the plan information indicates control content of the mobile object according to the DDT (¶65-71 – planned route data/maneuver/navigation task data is gathered from the vehicle corresponding to the recited collect plan information including telemetric data for specific maneuver/navigation tasks during operator fulfillment of remote support request corresponding to the recited control content of the mobile object according to the DDT);
collect behavior information that appears in the mobile object after planning for the instruction information (¶65-71 and Fig. 4 – record telemetry batch corresponding to the recited behavior information of the vehicle after receiving operator input corresponding to the recited after planning for the instruction information); and
acquire a trajectory gap between, as a traveling trajectory of the mobile object, a plan trajectory represented by the plan information and an actual trajectory represented by the behavior information, wherein the trajectory gap is calculated by aggregating a distance calculated by the DDT between the plan trajectory and the actual trajectory, the plan trajectory is represented by the plan information indicating the control content of the mobile object and planned by the mobile object according to the DDT, and the actual trajectory is represented by the behavior information after planning for the instruction information (¶44-53 – operator deviation from optimal parameters including lane position, deviation from lane center, as well as other operator variations from expected performance corresponding to the recited trajectory gap where expected optimal trajectory corresponding to the recited plan trajectory and operator directly measurable as well as derived characteristics corresponding to the recited actual trajectory for determining the deviation corresponding to the recited trajectory gap by aggregating the scoring information over multiple time intervals corresponding to the recited aggregating the distance between optimal and actual controls); and
output evaluation information that has evaluated the operator based on the acquired trajectory gap (¶65-71 – operator score utilizing confidence score by comparing predefined maneuvers and tasks to the results of operator control corresponding to the recited trajectory gap between a plan trajectory and an actual operator controls)
Regarding claim 5, Magzimof further discloses wherein outputting the evaluation information includes outputting the evaluation information based on an actual behavior of the mobile object and a statistical behavior represented by statistical information accumulated regarding the actual behavior, the actual behavior being represented by the behavior information (¶40-44 and ¶66 – operator scoring corresponding to the recited evaluation information includes telemetry data corresponding to the recited actual behavior of the mobile object which is scored over time and computed utilizing averages and normalized to a desired range for comparison corresponding to the recited statistical information accumulated regarding the actual behavior of the vehicle via the telemetry data).
Regarding claim 6, Magzimof further discloses wherein generating the instruction information includes generating the instruction information that is an instruction from the operator via remote operation of the mobile object (¶70 - element 606 and 607 operator confirmation to enable teleoperation session and subsequent operator controls corresponding to the recited instruction from an operator in response to the assistance request for remote operation of the mobile object).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeMarco et al. (US 2006/0121418) discloses a system for evaluating missions based on deviation from planned path (¶30).
Eisenbarth et al. (US 2019/0113612) discloses a system for evaluating a driver assistance system by comparing the actual performance measurements relative to the planned trajectory of the object (¶35).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights