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
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 02/25/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are pending. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4 have been amended. The objections to claim 2 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 20250021091 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a remote driving system in which a remote driver (claim 12, first remote human operator) is assigned to a target mobile body (claim 12, first vehicle) and remote driving of the target mobile body is performed by the assigned remote driver (claim 12, “wherein the first vehicle is under operational control of the first remote human operator”),
the remote driving system comprising one or more processors (Fig. 1, processing unit 114) configured to additionally assign, under a predetermined condition (par. 12, “determining, based at least in part on the second information, that at least one of the first remote human operator, the first vehicle or the second drive state is violating one of a plurality of standards”), a second remote driver to the target mobile body (claim 12, “selecting a second remote human operator of the plurality of remote human operators based at least in part on: the second drive state of the first vehicle at the second time; and a second attribute of the first remote human operator”) while a first remote driver remains assigned to the target mobile body (claim 12, “determining, based at least in part on the second information, that at least one of the first remote human operator, the first vehicle or the second drive state is violating one of a plurality of standards at the third time…selecting a second remote human operator of the plurality of remote human operators…establishing a bi-directional communication channel between the first computer system and a third computer system, wherein the third computer system is associated with the second remote human operator; and transferring operational control of the first vehicle to the third computer system at a fourth time, wherein the fourth time follows the third time; and disestablishing the bi-directional communication channel between the first computer system and the second computer system”—the second remote human operator is selected while the first human remote operator is still in control),
wherein the first remote driver remotely drives the target mobile body by performing a first driving operation from a first remote cockpit (Fig. 2G; claim 12, “the first vehicle is under operational control of the first remote human operator”), and the second remote driver remotely drives the target mobile body by performing a second driving operation from a second remote cockpit (Fig. 2G; claim 12, “transferring operational control of the first vehicle to the third computer system”—the second remote driver takes over operational control of the vehicle),
wherein the target mobile body is configured to be driven based on first driving operation information corresponding to the first driving operation after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed (claim 12, “determining, based at least in part on the second information, that at least one of the first remote human operator, the first vehicle or the second drive state is violating one of a plurality of standards at the third time…selecting a second remote human operator of the plurality of remote human operators…establishing a bi-directional communication channel between the first computer system and a third computer system, wherein the third computer system is associated with the second remote human operator; and transferring operational control of the first vehicle to the third computer system at a fourth time, wherein the fourth time follows the third time”—the second remote human operator is selected while the first human remote operator is still in control), and to be driven based on based on second driving operation information corresponding to the second driving operation while the remote driving by the second remote driver is being performed (claim 12, “…and disestablishing the bi-directional communication channel between the first computer system and the second computer system”—the first remote human operator is no longer connected to the vehicle, and the second remote human operator controls the vehicle),
and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed, synchronize an operation state of the second remote cockpit with an operation state of the first remote cockpit based on the first driving operation information (claim 12, “establishing a bi-directional communication channel between the first computer system and a third computer system, wherein the third computer system is associated with the second remote human operator”; par 83, "The computer system 450 then establishes a channel for bi-directional communications between the vehicle 402 and a teleoperator station 410-7 of the teleoperator 420-7, and begins transferring information or data regarding the operation of the vehicle 402 to the teleoperator station 410-7. Such information or data may include, but need not be limited to, imaging data captured by the imaging devices 404-1, 404-2, 404-3, as well as any other relevant information or data regarding the drive state 430 or the attributes 445 of the driver 440"—the synchronization occurs before driving authority has been transferred, as described in par. 83-84).
It is not explicitly stated that the target mobile body is configured to be driven based on first driving operation information corresponding to the first driving operation after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed. However, it can be assumed that the steps of claim 12 happen in order. That is, selecting the second remote human operator (second remote driver has been assigned, but driving authority has not yet been transferred, therefore the first remote driver is still in control), then establishing a bi-directional communication channel between the first computer system and a third computer system (synchronizing the operating state), then finally transferring operational control to the second remote human driver. During establishing a bi-directional communication channel, it can be reasonably assumed that the first remote operator is still in control.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kindo (US 20210039680 A1) in view of Gordon (US 20250021091 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kindo teaches a remote driving system in which a remote driver (par. 5, “a first driver from outside the vehicle”) is assigned to a target mobile body and remote driving of the target mobile body is performed by the assigned remote driver (par. 5, “a vehicle is traveling by remote driving by a first driver from outside the vehicle”),
the remote driving system comprising one or more processors (par. 65, processor) configured to additionally assign, under a predetermined condition (par. 78, predetermined operation), a second remote driver to the target mobile body while a first remote driver remains assigned to the target mobile body (par. 78, "driving is handed over from the first driver to the second driver is a case in which any of a first condition that a predetermined operation, which includes the first driver requesting handover of driving, is performed, a second condition that a predetermined driving handover time from the first driver to the second driver has arrived, or a third condition that an abnormality of the first driver is detected, is satisfied"),
wherein the first remote driver remotely drives the target mobile body by performing a first driving operation from a first remote cockpit (Fig. 1, first remote driving operation device 34), and the second remote driver remotely drives the target mobile body by performing a second driving operation from a second remote cockpit (Fig. 1, second remote driving operation device 34),
(par. 66, "the second state in which the vehicle travels by remote driving or occupant driving by the second driver"),
Kindo fails to teach the target mobile body is configured to be driven based on first driving operation information corresponding to the first driving operation after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed, and fails to explicitly teach the one or more processors are further configured to, after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed, synchronize an operation state of the second remote cockpit with an operation state of the first remote cockpit based on the first driving operation information.
Kindo instead only teaches temporarily switching to autonomous driving while the second driver prepares to take control (Fig. 2 steps 110-116) and the target mobile body is configured to operate based on first driving operation information on the remote driving by the first remote driver while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed (par. 66, "In the first aspect, in the case of handing over driving of the vehicle, transition is caused from the first state, in which the vehicle is traveling by remote driving or occupant driving by the first driver").
However, Gordon teaches the target mobile body is configured to be driven based on first driving operation information corresponding to the first driving operation after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed (par. 83 and Fig. 4H, "the computer system 450 determines that one of the teleoperators 420-7 is particularly well-suited to take control of the vehicle 402 at the destination 446"—as can be seen in Fig. 4H, the first driver continues to drive the vehicle even after the second driver has been identified and recommended to the first driver),
and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, after the second remote driver has been assigned and while the remote driving by the second remote driver is not being performed, synchronize an operation state of the second remote cockpit with an operation state of the first remote cockpit based on the first driving operation information (par 83, "The computer system 450 then establishes a channel for bi-directional communications between the vehicle 402 and a teleoperator station 410-7 of the teleoperator 420-7, and begins transferring information or data regarding the operation of the vehicle 402 to the teleoperator station 410-7. Such information or data may include, but need not be limited to, imaging data captured by the imaging devices 404-1, 404-2, 404-3, as well as any other relevant information or data regarding the drive state 430 or the attributes 445 of the driver 440"—the synchronization occurs before driving authority has been transferred, as described in par. 83-84).
Gordon teaches transferring driving authority from a local operator to a remote operator. While this differs with Kindo which involves transferring driving authority between two remote operators, it would have been obvious that Gordon’s methods would be applicable to Kindo as well.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kindo to incorporate the teachings of Gordon so that transferring control between operators is executed “precisely and effectively, in order to ensure that the road vehicle is safely operated without risk to any occupants of the road vehicle, or of any persons, property or other road vehicles within a vicinity of the road vehicle” (par. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kindo in view of Gordon teaches the remote driving system according to claim 1. Kindo further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: acquire the first driving operation information and operation status information on operation of the target mobile body (par. 18, "The driver detection unit 20 detects the state of the driver who operates the occupant driving operation unit 18"); compare the first driving operation information with the operation status information; determine, based on the result of the comparison, whether the remote driving by the first remote driver is appropriate (par. 18, "the driver detection unit 20 determines the presence or absence of an abnormality of the driver by comparing the result of detecting the state of the driver with a threshold, and outputs an abnormality detection signal when the abnormality of the driver is detected"); and wherein the one or more processors additionally assign the second remote driver to the target mobile body in response to the determination is made that the remote driving by the first remote driver is not appropriate (par. 78, "driving is handed over from the first driver to the second driver is a case in which any of a first condition that a predetermined operation, which includes the first driver requesting handover of driving, is performed, a second condition that a predetermined driving handover time from the first driver to the second driver has arrived, or a third condition that an abnormality of the first driver is detected, is satisfied").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kindo in view of Gordon teaches the remote driving system according to claim 1. Kindo further teaches when the remote driving by the second remote driver is started, the target mobile body has a switching period of switching from operation based on the first driving operation information (par. 42, first state) to operation based on the second driving operation information (par. 42, second state, transition from first to second state is third state; Fig. 2 steps 110 and 116); and the target mobile body is configured to operate based on third driving operation information generated to gradually change from the first driving operation information to the second driving operation information during the switching period (par. 60, " in the automatic driving mode, the driving handover control unit 30 causes the automatic operation control unit 28 to perform automatic operation of the operation amount corresponding to between the driving operation by the driver A detected by the occupant driving operation unit 18 or the remote driving operation unit 38 and the preliminary driving operation performed by the driver B. Thereby, when changing the driving mode of the vehicle from the occupant driving mode or the remote driving mode by the driver A to the automatic driving mode, and when shifting from the automatic driving mode to the occupant driving mode or the remote driving mode by the driver B, significant change in the behavior of the vehicle can be suppressed").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kindo in view of Gordon teaches the remote driving system according to claim 1. Kindo further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to, while the remote driving by the second remote driver is being performed, notify the second remote driver that the remote driving by the second remote driver is being performed (par. 35, " the driving handover control unit 30 notifies, through the display device of the occupant driving operation unit 18 or the display device of the remote driving operation unit 38, the recognized driver B that the driving of the vehicle is to be changed").
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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights