DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments received on 03/03/2026.
With respect to applicant’s amendments to the specification filed on 03/03/2026, the amendments do not introduce new matter and comply with 37 CFR 1.121. Thus, the amendment is entered.
Claims 5 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are being considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 12(b) rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-19 are withdrawn in response to applicant's amendment.
Response to 101 Arguments: Applicant's refers to the §101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-19 of the remarks, the amended claims and arguments have been considered and are found persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-19 is withdraw. The claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 as amended claims recite limitations which are not abstract under Prong 2 of Step 2A of the Alice analysis, as they are directed to a system configured control the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based on the vehicle identification information, and any abstractions recited in the claim limitations which may be construed as "Certain methods of organizing human activity" or "mathematical concept" limitations are integrated into a practical application, as the additional elements reflect applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception by controlling the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based on the vehicle identification information. Thus, the claims meet the Alice test for eligibility under 35 USC §101 and MPEP 2106 as the claims recite limitations which are not abstract under step 2A.
Response to 103 Arguments: Applicant's refers to the §103 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-19 of the remarks, the amended claims have been addressed in the updated 103 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-19 set forth below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato Matsumoto (US 2023/0081876 A1, hereinafter “Matsumoto”) in view of James Brooks (US 2018/0356814 A1, hereinafter “Brooks”).
Claim 1/18/19
Matsumoto teaches:
An information processing system, comprising: a sensor group configured to detect sensor information ([0081] The remote-controlled unit 22 of the vehicle 10 transmits, to the remote assistance apparatus 30, information that indicates a vehicle state. [0057] The sensor group 16 is configured by various types of sensors. The sensor group 16 includes a plurality of cameras that capture images of a vicinity of the vehicle, and a millimeter-wave radar or a Light Detection and Ranging/Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) that detects obstacles in the vicinity of the vehicle. A distance to the obstacle is acquired by the millimeter-wave radar or the LIDAR. [0081] The remote-controlled unit 22 of the vehicle 10 transmits, to the remote assistance apparatus 30, information that indicates a vehicle state, such as an image of a vicinity of the vehicle 10 that is acquired by the sensor group 15 of the vehicle 10); and one or more processors ([0062] The CPU 31 is an example of a processor) configured to:
receive the sensor information from the sensor group ([0057] The sensor group 16 is configured by various types of sensors. [0081] The remote-controlled unit 22 of the vehicle 10 transmits, to the remote assistance apparatus 30, information that indicates a vehicle state, such as an image of a vicinity of the vehicle 10 that is acquired by the sensor group 15 of the vehicle 10);
determines states determine a state of each of a plurality of vehicles based on the sensor information ([0081] The remote-controlled unit 22 of the vehicle 10 transmits, to the remote assistance apparatus 30, information that indicates a vehicle state, such as an image of a vicinity of the vehicle 10 that is acquired by the sensor group 15 of the vehicle 10));
determine a state of each of a plurality of operators for a remote monitoring operation of a respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles ([0094] As shown in FIG. 4, identification information (ID) of the operators who work in the control room is registered in the management table 102. The management table 102 stores therein an ID of the terminal apparatus, a status, a schedule, and the newest evaluation result in association with the ID of the operator. [0096] For example, the status of the operator may be expressed by preparing, standing by, in progress, suspended, resting, and the like);
calculate a required state level for the each of the plurality of vehicles (fig. 16 and [00190]an score P(1-3) that is based on the vehicle state of the oncoming vehicle is expressed by a weighted sum of the score P1, the score P2, and the score P3. Figure 16 further illustrates how the allowable value (required state level associated with vehicle) is determined),
wherein the required state level indicates a required proficiency level of an operator of the plurality of operators for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle (Figure 16 illustrates the breakdown and overall score of the requires state level required (allowable). [0104]-[0105] In the management table, when the evaluation result is OK (that is, capable of performing duties) or when the score is equal to or greater than the allowable value, the evaluation result is positive and the operational capability of the operator is judged to be sufficient. Meanwhile, when the evaluation result is NG (that is, incapable of performing duties) or when the score is less than the allowable value, the evaluation result is negative and the operating capability of the operator is judged to be insufficient, while [0104] The score that indicates the operational capability indicates that the operational capability of the operator is higher as a value thereof increases. An allowable value is set in advance for the score),
and the calculation of the required state level for the each of the plurality of vehicles is based on the state of the respective vehicle (fig. 16 and [00190]-[0195] an score P(1-3) that is based on the vehicle state of the oncoming vehicle is expressed by a weighted sum of the score P1, the score P2, and the score P3. Figure 16 further illustrates how the allowable value (required state level associated with vehicle) is determined);
calculate a state level for the each of the plurality of operators, wherein the state level indicates a level of a state of a respective operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle, and the calculation of the state level for the each of the plurality of operators is based on the state of the respective operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle ([0102] The newest evaluation result is the newest evaluation result among evaluation results that are related to the operational capability of the operator. The evaluation result is an evaluation result when the operator performs a task or an evaluation result when the operator performs a simulation. [0103] The evaluation result may be expressed by capability/incapability of performing duties, such as “capable of performing duties” or “incapable of performing duties,” or may be expressed by a score that indicates the operational capability. In FIG. 4, “capable of performing duties” is displayed as OK and “incapable of performing duties” is displayed as NG. In addition, the evaluation result may be expressed by both capability/incapability of performing duties and the score. Time at which the evaluation result is acquired may be associated with the evaluation result);
compare the required state level for the respective vehicle with the state level for the respective operator (Fig. 4 illustrates a comparison of the required state level for the respective vehicle (allowable value) with the state level for the respective operator (OK value). 0103] The evaluation result may be expressed by capability/incapability of performing duties, such as “capable of performing duties” or “incapable of performing duties,” or may be expressed by a score that indicates the operational capability. In FIG. 4, “capable of performing duties” is displayed as OK and “incapable of performing duties” is displayed as NG. In addition, the evaluation result may be expressed by both capability/incapability of performing duties and the score. Time at which the evaluation result is acquired may be associated with the evaluation result. [0104] The score that indicates the operational capability indicates that the operational capability of the operator is higher as a value thereof increases);
assign at least one operator of the plurality of operators to the respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle, wherein the at least one operator is assigned based on the comparison([0105] In the management table, when the evaluation result is OK (that is, capable of performing duties) or when the score is equal to or greater than the allowable value, the evaluation result is positive and the operational capability of the operator is judged to be sufficient. Meanwhile, when the evaluation result is NG (that is, incapable of performing duties) or when the score is less than the allowable value, the evaluation result is negative and the operating capability of the operator is judged to be insufficient. [0107] selects a single operator whose schedule is free from among the plurality of operators whose evaluation results are positive. Then, the CPU 31 assigns the task to the selected operator).
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Brooks teaches:
receive vehicle identification information via a network based on a result of the assignment of the at least one operator ([0230] At 1902, information about one or more vehicle systems that are to be remotely controlled is obtained. This information can include make up information, which indicates or represents the vehicles in the vehicle systems (e.g., by model number, road number, horsepower capability, braking capability, etc.), [0231] The assignment of which remote operator is to be communicatively coupled with the vehicle systems may be made based at least in part on the information received at 1902 );
and control the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based on the vehicle identification information([0106] At 502, vehicle systems 104 that are to be remotely controlled and/or monitored during upcoming trips are identified. [0112] At 514, an operator having a specialized qualification that is required by a vehicle system is assigned to that vehicle system. [0117] At 524, the vehicle systems are remotely controlled and/or monitored using instructions that are sent from the assigned operators. [0231] At 1904, a remote operator is communicatively coupled with at least one vehicle system. For example, the remote-control system can communicate one or more signals with the vehicle control system of the vehicle system via a communication network that includes and/or is formed from the communication devices. The assignment of which remote operator is to be communicatively coupled with the vehicle systems may be made based at least in part on the information received at 1902).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto to include those of Brooks such as receive vehicle identification information via a network based on a result of the assignment of the at least one operator and control the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based on the vehicle identification information as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0004]).
Claim 2
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Brooks teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to assign a set of operators of the plurality of operators to one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles ([0041] The remote-control machines 106 can remotely control movement of the vehicle systems 104 by sending command messages to controllers 114 (“Controller #A” and “Controller #B” in FIG. 1) that are on board the vehicle systems 104. multiple operators 102 may be assigned to control a single vehicle 104 at the same time).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto to include those of Brooks such as the one or more processors are further configured to assign a set of operators of the plurality of operators to one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0004]).
Claim 3
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Brooks teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to assign the at least one operator of the plurality of operators to each part of a plurality of parts of the one vehicle, and the at least one operator is assigned to the each part for the remote monitoring operation of a respective part of the plurality of parts ([0041] multiple operators 102 may be assigned to control a single vehicle 104 at the same time, while [0213] multiple operators at the same and/or different remote-control systems can assist in controlling and/or control operations of the same vehicle system. For example, a first off-board operator may control the operational settings of a first propulsion-generating vehicle in the vehicle system while a second off-board operator (at the same or different remote-control system) may control the operational settings of a second propulsion-generating vehicle in the same vehicle system. Alternatively, the off-board operators may control different settings of the same vehicle, such as one off-board operator controlling speed, another off-board operator monitoring the alertness of an onboard operator, another off-board operator monitoring brake pressures, etc., of the same vehicle).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto to include those of Brooks such as the assign the at least one operator of the plurality of operators to each part of a plurality of parts of the one vehicle, and the at least one operator is assigned to the each part for the remote monitoring operation of a respective part of the plurality of parts as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0004]).
Claim 4
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Brooks teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to assign one of the plurality of operators to the plurality of vehicles (0041] The remote-control machines 106 can remotely control movement of the vehicle systems 104 by sending command messages to controllers 114 (“Controller #A” and “Controller #B” in FIG. 1) that are on board the vehicle systems 104. A single operator 102 may be assigned to remotely control multiple, different (e.g., separate) vehicles 104. For example, a single operator 102 may a machine 106 to remotely control multiple vehicles 104 moving in different directions, at different speeds, in different locations, etc., at the same time.).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto to include those of Brooks such as assign one of the plurality of operators to the plurality of vehicles as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0004]).
Claim 6
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to assign the at least one operator to a set of vehicles of the plurality of vehicles, based on the state level of the at least one operator that is one of equal to or greater than the required state level of the respective vehicle ([0102] The newest evaluation result is the newest evaluation result among evaluation results that are related to the operational capability of the operator. [0103] The evaluation result may be expressed by capability/incapability of performing duties, such as “capable of performing duties” or “incapable of performing duties,” or may be expressed by a score that indicates the operational capability. [0104]-[0107] In the management table, when the evaluation result is OK (that is, capable of performing duties) or when the score is equal to or greater than the allowable value, the evaluation result is positive and the operational capability of the operator is judged to be sufficient. The management table shown in FIG. 4 and selects a single operator whose schedule is free from among the plurality of operators whose evaluation results are positive. Then, the CPU 31 assigns the task to the selected operator).
Claim 11
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the state of the operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle includes a static state of the operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle (figure 4 and [0096] For example, the status of the operator may be expressed by preparing, standing by, in progress, suspended, resting, and the like. Each status expresses in a state shown in Table 1, below. The task herein is remote control).
Claim 12
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the static state of the operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle includes a proficiency state of the operator, for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle (Figure 4, Table 1, and [0097] every time the operator performs a task, an evaluation related to the operational capability of the operator is performed. The operator whose operational capability is judged to be sufficient (affirmed) by the evaluation result has the status set to “standing by.” Meanwhile, the operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient (denied) by the evaluation result has the status changed to “suspended.” Assignment of a task to the operator whose status is “suspended” is prohibited. [0100] The operator whose status is “suspended” or “preparing” is subject to inspection to return to duty. The operator whose operational capability is judged to be sufficient by an inspection result has the status returned to “standing by,” that is, is able to return to duty).
Claim 13
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the state of the operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle includes a dynamic state of the operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle (Figure 4, Table 1, and [0097] every time the operator performs a task, an evaluation related to the operational capability of the operator is performed. The operator whose operational capability is judged to be sufficient (affirmed) by the evaluation result has the status set to “standing by.” [0100] The operator whose status is “suspended” or “preparing” is subject to inspection to return to duty. The operator whose operational capability is judged to be sufficient by an inspection result has the status returned to “standing by,” that is, is able to return to duty. Table 1 further describes dynamic status such “Standing by”- The operational capability is judged to be sufficient by the evaluation result. Assignment of a task to the operator is possible. “In progress” - The operator is performing an assigned task. Assignment of another task to the operator is not possible.).
Claim 14
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the dynamic state of the operator for the remote monitoring operation of the respective vehicle includes one of an arousal state, a fatigue state, or a concentration state of the operator(Figure 4, Table 1, and [0097] every time the operator performs a task, an evaluation related to the operational capability of the operator is performed. The operator whose operational capability is judged to be sufficient (affirmed) by the evaluation result has the status set to “standing by.”, [0099] Furthermore, when the operator is resting, the status is changed to “resting.” Assignment of a task is not performed to the operator whose status is “resting.” When a rest period ends within a predetermined amount of time without the rest period being extended, the status returns to “standing by.” while [0033] a suitable operator can be assigned to each vehicle based on operator experience. Remote assistance for each vehicle can be efficiently performed. However, even in a case of an experienced operator, operational capability may decrease due to ill health, drowsiness, or the like. [0121] and [0122] According to the first embodiment, the operational capability of the operator is evaluated based on effects the operation by the operator has on an oncoming vehicle.) [0122] As shown in FIG. 8, in this example, a vehicle 10A causes an operator who is in a remote location to determine whether avoidance of a parked vehicle 10B that is an obstacle can be performed (which describes concentration and arousal state of operator). [0143] The task of remotely controlling the vehicle is not assigned to the operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by the evaluation result. Therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by operator fatigue can be prevented).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Brooks, as applied by claim 1, and further in view of Charlie Gunderson (US 20070268158 A1, hereinafter “Gunderson”).
Claim 7
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to assign the at least one operator to […] vehicles of the plurality of vehicles, based on the state level of the at least one operator that is one of equal to or greater than a sum of required state levels [vehicle] ([0102] The newest evaluation result is the newest evaluation result among evaluation results that are related to the operational capability of the operator. [0103] The evaluation result may be expressed by capability/incapability of performing duties, such as “capable of performing duties” or “incapable of performing duties,” or may be expressed by a score that indicates the operational capability. [0104]-[0107] In the management table, when the evaluation result is OK (that is, capable of performing duties) or when the score is equal to or greater than the allowable value, the evaluation result is positive and the operational capability of the operator is judged to be sufficient. The management table shown in FIG. 4 and selects a single operator whose schedule is free from among the plurality of operators whose evaluation results are positive. Then, the CPU 31 assigns the task to the selected operator).
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Brooks teaches:
assign the at least one operator to a set of vehicles of the plurality of vehicles, ([0041] The remote-control machines 106 can remotely control movement of the vehicle systems 104 by sending command messages to controllers 114 (“Controller #A” and “Controller #B” in FIG. 1) that are on board the vehicle systems 104. a single operator 102 may be assigned to remotely control multiple, different (e.g., separate) vehicles 104. For example, a single operator 102 may a machine 106 to remotely control multiple vehicles 104 moving in different directions, at different speeds, in different locations, etc., at the same time. Alternatively, multiple operators 102 may be assigned to control a single vehicle 104 at the same time).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto to include those of Brooks such as assign the at least one operator to a set of vehicles of the plurality of vehicles as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0004]).
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Gunderson teaches:
a score associated with required state levels of the set of vehicles ([0068] scoring vehicles, calculating multiple driver scores for the same vehicle type, e.g., for a shift of drivers, aggregating multiple driver scores over multiple vehicles,);
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto and Brooks to include those of Gunderson such a score associated with required state levels of the set of vehicles as part of the evaluation and assignment unit taught by Matsumoto to assign the operators based on these scores, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0002]).
Claim 9
Matsumoto teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to […][operator] is assigned based on a sum of state levels of […] operators that is one of equal to or greater than the required state level of the one vehicle ([0140] the CPU 31 calculates an overall score P using the score P1, the score P2, and the score P3. The determination items may be weighted rather than averaged. For example, the overall score may be a value that is obtained by the score P1, the score P2, and the score P3 being weighted and added together. [0141] the CPU 31 determines whether the overall score P is equal to or greater than an allowable value. When the overall score P is equal to or greater than the allowable value, the CPU 31 proceeds to step S238. At step S238, the CPU 31 determines that the operator is capable of performing duties and ends the routine for the evaluation acquiring process. [0142] evaluation of operational capability of each of the plurality of operators is performed in real time. When the task of remotely controlling the vehicle is assigned, the task is assigned to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be sufficient by the evaluation result. Therefore, the task can be assigned to the operator whose operational capability is guaranteed).
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Brooks teaches:
assign a set of operators of the plurality of operators to one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, ([0041] The remote-control machines 106 can remotely control movement of the vehicle systems 104 by sending command messages to controllers 114 (“Controller #A” and “Controller #B” in FIG. 1) that are on board the vehicle systems 104. multiple operators 102 may be assigned to control a single vehicle 104 at the same time).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto to include those of Brooks such as assign a set of operators of the plurality of operators to one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0004]).
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Gunderson teaches:
the set of operators scores ([0068] scoring vehicles, calculating multiple driver scores for the same vehicle type, e.g., for a shift of drivers, aggregating multiple driver scores over multiple vehicles,);
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto and Brooks to include those of Gunderson such scoring vehicles and calculating multiple driver scores for the same vehicle type and over multiple of vehicles as part of the evaluation and assignment unit taught by Matsumoto to assign the operators based on these scores, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0002]).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Brooks, as applied by claim 1, and further in view of Honda Motor Company (JP 6650386 B2, hereinafter “Honda”).
Claim 15
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Honda teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the state of the respective vehicle includes at least one of a static state or a dynamic state of the respective vehicle ([0053] The external world recognition unit 121 recognizes the position of the surrounding vehicle and the state of the speed, acceleration, and the like of the surrounding vehicle directly from the camera 10, the radar 12, and the finder 14, or based on information input via the object recognition device 16. I do. The position of the surrounding vehicle may be represented by a representative point such as the center of gravity or a corner of the surrounding vehicle, or may be represented by an area represented by the outline of the surrounding vehicle. The “state” of the surrounding vehicle may include the acceleration and jerk of the surrounding vehicle, or the “action state” (for example, whether or not the vehicle is changing lanes or trying to change lanes). Further, the external world recognition unit 121 may recognize the positions of guardrails, telephone poles, parked vehicles, pedestrians, and other objects in addition to surrounding vehicles).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto and Brooks to include those of Honda such as the state of the respective vehicle includes at least one of a static state or a dynamic state of the respective vehicle as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0005]).
Claim 17
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following, however analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Honda teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 15, wherein the dynamic state of the respective vehicle includes at least one of a driving state of the respective vehicle or a state of a peripheral environment of the respective vehicle ([0053] The external world recognition unit 121 recognizes the position of the surrounding vehicle and the state of the speed, acceleration, and the like of the surrounding vehicle directly from the camera 10, the radar 12, and the finder 14, or based on information input via the object recognition device 16. I do. The position of the surrounding vehicle may be represented by a representative point such as the center of gravity or a corner of the surrounding vehicle, or may be represented by an area represented by the outline of the surrounding vehicle. The “state” of the surrounding vehicle may include the acceleration and jerk of the surrounding vehicle, or the “action state” (for example, whether or not the vehicle is changing lanes or trying to change lanes). Further, the external world recognition unit 121 may recognize the positions of guardrails, telephone poles, parked vehicles, pedestrians, and other objects in addition to surrounding vehicles).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto and Brooks to include those of Honda such as the dynamic state of the respective vehicle includes at least one of a driving state of the respective vehicle or a state of a peripheral environment of the respective vehicle as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow an appropriate remote operator to execute remote driving by an operator with sufficient capability, and therefore, erroneous operations and erroneous judgment caused by insufficient operator can be prevented. ([0005]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Brooks in view of Honda, as applied by claim 1, and further in view of Hemant Khandelwal (US 2018/0087948 A1, hereinafter “Khandelwal”).
Claim 16
While Matsumoto teaches in [0035] a task assigning unit that prohibits assignment of a task to an operator whose operational capability is judged to be insufficient by newest evaluation results that are stored in a storage unit, and assigns a task of remotely controlling a vehicle to an operator who is selected from among a plurality of operators whose operating abilities are judged to be sufficient by the newest evaluation results and [0046] remote assistance refers to an operator monitoring a state of the vehicle from a remote location and responding to a request for remote assistance from the vehicle. Response by the operator includes, in addition to the operator remotely controlling the vehicle, responding to a passenger of the vehicle. [0050] The remote assistance apparatus 30 periodically communicates with the vehicle 10 and monitors the state of the vehicle. The remote assistance apparatus 30 receives the request for remote assistance from the vehicle 10. Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following; however, analogues reference in the field of fleet management, Khandelwal teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 15, wherein the static state of the respective vehicle includes a characteristic of the respective vehicle ([0069] the current status of the one or more vehicles 204 include a running state of the one or more vehicles 204, a stoppage state of the one or more vehicles 204 and a missing data state of the one or more sensors. [0070] The stoppage zone state is the state when the one or more vehicles 204 are in stationary position. In addition, the stationary position is the position of the one or more vehicles 204 at zero speed).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto, Brooks, and Honda to include those of Khandelwal such as the static state of the respective vehicle includes a characteristic of the respective vehicle as part of the evaluation unit taught by Matsumoto, because doing so would allow dynamic and efficient detection of one or more events in one or more vehicles. ([0001]).
Examiner Notes
Claims 8 and 10 are objected, but would be allowable, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200272949 A1
Relevant paragraphs: Entire document
Chen; Sean Shanshi et al.
US 20210312725 A1
Relevant paragraphs: [0141]-[0146]
Milton; Stephen
US 20200062267 A1
Relevant paragraphs: Entire document
Magzimof; Shay et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625