DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 26 May 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10; Applicant cancelled claims 8 and 9. Claims 11-14 were newly added. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant requests that an IDS submitted on 14 August 2025 be acknowledged and considered by Examiner. However, the Image File record for this application does not indicate an IDS was filed on this date. The Examiner is unable to consider an IDS that is not classified as such. It is recommended that Applicant resubmit the IDS or attempt to correct the classification of the document.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose selecting either the risk level or the service level using an evaluation result depending on communication quality, calculate the new travel route based on the selected level, and generate the travel control information for changing from the predetermined travel route to the new travel route. Examiner does not agree.
With respect to the teaching of the claimed “service level”, Applicant’s Specification describes the term to include not only the difficulty level of a service, but also may be a constraint on travel, such as driving speed (see Applicant’s specification as submitted, pg. 13, line 29-35). Based on this, Anabuki teaches a service level describing difficulty of completing a task (see para. 0265-0268, 0291-0292) and the possible maximum speed for completing the task (Figs. 28A-28B).
Anabuki further teaches that one of the claimed “risk level or the service level” is selected. In the event of an emergency, Anabuki teaches that a route is prohibited (see para. 0256) based on the risk. From there, operation is switched based on a service decision, as the maximum speed is reduced (see para. 0260). Thus, switching to allow the vehicle to continue at a lower maximum speed is equivalent to selecting a risk level or service level.
Anabuki also teaches “calculating a new route based on the risk level or service level”. Anabuki teaches that flooding or a frozen segment of road may be encountered (see paras. 0264-0268), which prompts a lowering of the maximum speed as well as switching to a “…travel mode in which travel is possible” and is equivalent to a new route. Similarly, Anabuki teaches that a new route may be determined to pass another vehicle based on a speed-limited incident/changed service level (see paras. 0284-0286).
The rejection is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anabuki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0315056).
For claim 1, Anabuki teaches a mobile entity control device comprising: a communication circuit that communicates with a mobile entity capable of autonomous driving (see para. 0098); and a processor (see Fig. 2, #240) that measures delay of communication with the mobile entity via the communication circuit (see paras. 0201-0202). Anabuki does not explicitly disclose that the measurement circuit is determining a “quality”. However, Anabuki teaches that a delay in communication is measured. One of ordinary skill in the art has the necessary knowledge to draw equivalencies between “quality” and communication delays or latency, as delay and latency are known factors in determining the quality of the communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that communication delays and/or latency are equivalent to the quality of service communications based on the motivation to improve an autonomous vehicle operation with an information processing method and an information processing system capable of reducing the burden on a remote operating party in a remote location (see para. 0007).
Continuing with the claim, Anabuki further discloses determines a risk level of specific locations in a predetermined driving route along which the mobile entity travels (see paras. 0256-0258, no drive events equivalent to high risk); determines a service level of a service provided by the mobile entity (see paras. 0265-0268, 0291-0292; see also para. 0260, limiting speed); selects one of the risk level or the service level based on the risk level and the service level (see paras. 0260-0268, speed limited equivalent to selecting service level); calculates a new driving route based on at least the selected one of the risk level or the service level (see paras. 0264-0268, 0284-0286, speed limited, new route based on service level); and generates driving control information for controlling travel of the mobile entity to change a driving route of the mobile entity from the predetermined driving route to the new driving route based on at least selected one of the risk level or service level (see paras. 0264-0268, 0284-0286, speed limited, new route based on service level), and transmits the driving control information to the mobile entity via the communication circuit (see para. 0289-0290).
Referring to claim 2, Anabuki further discloses wherein the control circuit generates the driving control information based on the communication quality, the risk level, and the service level (see paras. 0166, 0195, 0264-0268, 0284-0286).
Pertaining to claim 3, Anabuki further discloses wherein the processor determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on past information including the driving control information from a past (see para. 0214, older command).
With regards to claim 4, Anabuki further teaches wherein the past information further includes information used to generate the driving control information (see para. 0214).
For claim 5, Anabuki further discloses wherein the processor determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on mobile entity information including pieces of information concerning a plurality of mobile entities with which the mobile entity control device communicates (see paras. 0239-0241), each of the plurality of mobile entities being the mobile entity (see para. 0214, older commands to same vehicle considered).
With reference to claim 6, Anabuki further discloses wherein the processor determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on map information indicating a map including the predetermined driving route (see para. 0065, travel plan).
Regarding claim 7, Anabuki further discloses wherein the processor determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on weather information (see paras. 0256-0258, events prohibiting driving functionally equivalent to high risk).
For claim 10, it defines subject matter and elements that largely mirror the subject matter and elements defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
Pertaining to claim 11, Anabuki does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, when selecting between two data points, one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing would have found it obvious to compare the two data points based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve an autonomous vehicle operation with an information processing method and an information processing system capable of reducing the burden on a remote operating party in a remote location (see para. 0007).
Regarding claim 12, Anabuki does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Anabuki discloses that some instances, the environmental issue takes precedence for updating the travel plan (see para. 0282), and therefore, it is implied that the risk level would have been higher. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the risk level would have been higher than a service level or maximum speed, so that the route would have been selected according to the risk level based on the motivation to improve an autonomous vehicle operation with an information processing method and an information processing system capable of reducing the burden on a remote operating party in a remote location (see para. 0007).
Referring to claim 13, Anabuki implies that the risk level would be higher than the service level or maximum allowable speed (see paras. 0282-0284), the processor selects the risk level for calculating the new driving route (see paras. 0282-0284) and causes the mobile entity to travel at a speed lower than a driving speed instructed by the predetermined driving route (see paras. 0282-0284).
With respect to claim 14, Anabuki does not explicitly disclose when the risk level is equal to or below the service level. However, it is well known in the art that a lack of risk or danger in the vehicle’s environment may allow for higher speeds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase travel speed higher than the suggested speed when risk level is low based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve an autonomous vehicle operation with an information processing method and an information processing system capable of reducing the burden on a remote operating party in a remote location (see para. 0007).
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the amended claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights