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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 1 and 5-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) and claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the argument involving the claimed, “predicted period of time required to resume the self-driving,” it is specifically challenged that Mingyu merely uses actual elapsed time during an ongoing pending switch state. However, the rejection is not based solely on Mingyu’s control weighting example ([0041]-[0042]). It should be noted that Mingyu’s disclosure also provides that a request may be made to change to autonomous driving mode based on detected conditions and the switching may depend on switching standards. The length of the pending switch state may vary according to current driving conditions and at the end of a switching state, the driving mode is updated to a new one ([0038], [0041], [0055]-[0057],). In addition, the secondary reference Satoshi further teaches an estimated duration relative to a cause affecting autonomous driving. Specifically, the reference provides an extent of influence including a duration which can be an estimated lapse of the cause from occurrence to elimination. This is determined using construction or statistical traffic information (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0057]-[0058], [0063]-[0065], [0069]-[0070]). Additionally, Satoshi teaches withholding a state (remote assistance) and continuing autonomous driving when the request falls within the extent of influence (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0075]-[0077]).
With respect to the claimed switch to from remote self-driving mode to remote manual driving mode when the first condition is not satisfied and a second condition is satisfied, it is specifically challenged that Satoshi uses a different decision framework based on registered point information, This is argument is not persuasive relative to the language of claim 1 under broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim broadly provides, a “predetermined second condition,” and does not limit the second condition. Satoshi teaches determining whether a remote assistance request falls within an extent of influence and when it is determined to be outside of the extent of influence, Satoshi determines that remote assistance by an operator is to be performed. As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang Mingyu et al. (US20210061299A1), hereinafter referred to as Mingyu, in view of Yoshinaga Satoshi et al. (US2023256998A1), hereinafter referred to as Satoshi.
Regarding claim 1, Mingyu discloses: a controller (see at least Mingyu, Fig.2, Item 200, “vehicle control unit); ¶¶ [0035]-[0037] which discloses a controller that controls the switching of driving modes, autonomous and manual) that controls an operation of a movable object that is able to travel in self-driving, the controller comprising:
a detecting unit configured to, when the movable object is traveling in self-driving, detect occurrence of an abnormal state including an abnormal stop on the movable object and a control unit (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0025], [0026], [0033], [0038], [0040]-[0042], which discloses a drive state monitor that actively obtains sensor data regarding a vehicle control environment and compares data structures in order to determine whether the driving mode can be changed relative to discovering a switching state (abnormal condition) that may be prompted from, but not limited to, conditions such as four-way stops, stop-and-go traffic (which warrants abrupt stops with no pattern), exceeding a speed limit, presence of other vehicles (overtaking, or switching lanes), etc., this means a detecting unit configured to, when the movable object is traveling in self-driving, detect occurrence of an abnormal state including an abnormal stop on the movable object), wherein:
the movable object has a manned driving mode (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0033] which discloses a manual driving mode)
and a remote self-driving mode (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0033] which discloses a remote self-driving mode)
the manned driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels when a driver in the movable object operates a driver input device provided in the movable object (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0033], [0042], [0057]-[0058] which discloses manual driving mode where the user control the movable object via manual inputs)
wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether a predetermined first condition is satisfied (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0041]-[0042] discloses a condition of using weighted values (perceived from determining the driving state condition via sensor data of environment) to determine whether a predetermined first condition is satisfied, and the control unit effectively keeps the movable object in autonomous mode, rather than switching to manual mode)
Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches: a remote manual driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043] discloses a remote manual driving mode)
the remote manual driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving a traveling condition, without the driver in the movable object, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a predicted period of time required to resume the self-driving is shorter than or equal to a predetermined time limit (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0057]-[0058], [0063]-[0065], [0069]-[0070], [0079]-[0080], which discloses determining an estimated duration of a cause affecting autonomous driving and using the extent of influence duration to determine whether remote assistance should be withheld while autonomous driving continues, this means the remote manual driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving a traveling condition, without the driver in the movable object, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a predicted period of time required to resume the self-driving is shorter than or equal to a predetermined time limit, this means the remote manual driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving a traveling condition, without the driver in the movable object, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a predicted period of time required to resume the self-driving is shorter than or equal to a predetermined time limit)
when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, the control unit is configured not to execute control to resume the self-driving in the remote self-driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0039]-[0040] which discloses the detection of a current driving state (vehicle behavior based on conditions warranted by traffic congestion, road obstacles, construction, etc.) it is determined that remote assistance via an operator is required and autonomous mode is switched to enable operator control)
when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the predetermined first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to execute control to resume the self-driving of the movable object while the driving mode of the movable object remains in the remote self- driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043], [0082]-[0083], [0090]-[0092], [0130] which discloses remote self-driving mode where a vehicle state condition triggers an operator intervention however, upon a predetermined condition being satisfied, while in remote operator mode, the vehicle is instructed to continue autonomous driving based on the action plan)
the traveling condition is a condition generated when an operator operates an operator input device provided in a place different from a place where the movable object is, and the traveling condition defines a traveling behavior of the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0029]-[0030], [0043]-[0045], which discloses remote manual driving mode for an AD vehicle without a driver, that utilizes driving input from remote assistance via operator device separated from the current environment of the moving object [0060]-[0062] which discloses determining the current traveling condition by acquiring vehicle information indicative of whether a vehicle is within an extent of influence; ¶¶ [0040] discloses an example of a travel behavior of a vehicle within an extent of influence, along with a first condition of a vehicle state)
the remote self-driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving the traveling condition generated by the controller, without operating any of the driver input device and the operator input device (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043], [0082]-[0083], [0090]-[0092], [0130] which discloses remote self-driving mode where a vehicle state condition triggers an operator intervention however, upon a predetermined condition being satisfied, while in remote operator mode, the vehicle is instructed to continue autonomous driving based on the action plan)
when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected, (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, and (iii) a predetermined second condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to switch the driving mode of the movable object from the remote self-driving mode to the remote manual driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0039]-[0040] which discloses the detection of a current driving state (vehicle behavior based on conditions warranted by traffic congestion, road obstacles, construction, etc.) it is determined that remote assistance via an operator is required and autonomous mode is switched to enable operator control)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include a remote manual driving mode, when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, the control unit is configured not to execute control to resume the self-driving in the remote self-driving mode, when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the predetermined first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to execute control to resume the self-driving of the movable object while the driving mode of the movable object remains in the remote self- driving mode, the traveling condition is a condition generated when an operator operates an operator input device provided in a place different from a place where the movable object is, and the traveling condition defines a traveling behavior of the movable object, the remote self-driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving the traveling condition generated by the controller, without operating any of the driver input device and the operator input device, and when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected, (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, and (iii) a predetermined second condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to switch the driving mode of the movable object from the remote self-driving mode to the remote manual driving mode as taught by Satoshi. Incorporating the teachings would allow for an improvement to the base device of Mingyu that incorporates remote driving assistance, while also reducing an operator workload through determination of vehicle state conditions when in a remote driving mode.
Regarding claim 5, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring is less than or equal to a value M (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring is less than or equal to a value M)
Regarding claim 6, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving is less than or equal to a value N (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving is less than or equal to a value N)
Regarding claim 7, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is in a predetermined region (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0071] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is in a predetermined region)
Regarding claim 8, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 7, wherein,
the predetermined region is any one of a first region, a second region, and a third region (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0071] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is in a predetermined region which may consist of different detected driving states)
the first region is a region in which another movable object traveling in the self-driving stops at a low frequency (see at least ¶¶ [0037]-[0039], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a predetermined region where another movable object is traveling in the vicinity at a threshold distance/speed)
Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches: the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route, the scheduled route is set for the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0060], [0081]-[0084], which discloses the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route as consequence of an impending obstacle detected by the sensor data, the scheduled route is set for the movable object to avoid the obstacle)
the third region is a region in which the operator is able to recognize the movable object; and the operator is taking a position and a posture such that the operator is able to operate the operator input device in the third region (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063] which discloses the third region is a region in which the operator is able to recognize the movable object; and the operator is taking a position and a posture such that the operator is able to operate the operator input device in the third region)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route, the scheduled route is set for the movable object and the third region is a region in which the operator is able to recognize the movable object; and the operator is taking a position and a posture such that the operator is able to operate the operator input device in the third region as taught by Satoshi. Incorporating the teachings would allow for an improvement to the base device of Mingyu that incorporates remote driving assistance, while also reducing an operator workload through determination of vehicle state conditions when in a remote driving mode.
Regarding claim 9, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a yaw rate sensor mounted on the movable object has not broken down (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0022] which discloses a condition that the yaw rate sensor is still operable)
Regarding claim 10, Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that the movable object does not need to travel off a scheduled route set for the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], [0066] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that the movable object does not need to travel off a scheduled route set for the movable object)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that the movable object does not need to travel off a scheduled route set for the movable object, as taught by Satoshi. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Mingyu presents a movable object capable of maintaining a planned route, however, travel paths and routes are not as explicitly mentioned as in Satoshi. Incorporating the teaching would allow for the system to make further determination based on the travel route of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is not a bad weather (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0026], [0035], [0038] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is not a bad weather)
Regarding claim 12, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a line for communication between the movable object and the controller is established (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0025]-[0028] which wherein the first condition includes a condition that a line for communication between the movable object and the controller is established)
Regarding claim 13, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 1, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a period of time required to resume the self-driving exceeds the time limit (see at least Mingyu, (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0041]-[0042] which discloses a first condition involving a period of time the vehicle is in switching state, allowing it to resume self-driving depending on whether the time is shorter or equal to a predetermined time limit)
Regarding claim 14, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 5, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring exceeds the value M (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring is greater than or equal to a value M)
Regarding claim 15, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 6, wherein the second condition includes a condition in which a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving exceeds the value N (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving is greater than or equal to a value N)
Regarding claim 16, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 7, wherein the second condition includes a condition that the current location of the movable object is not in the predetermined region (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0071] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is/is not in a predetermined region)
Regarding claim 17, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 9, wherein the second condition includes a condition that the yaw rate sensor mounted on the movable object has broken down (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0022] which discloses a condition whether the yaw rate sensor is still operable, or not)
Regarding claim 18, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 10, wherein the second condition includes a condition that the movable object needs to travel off the scheduled route set for the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0060], [0081]-[0084], which discloses the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route as consequence of an impending obstacle detected by the sensor data, the scheduled route is set for the movable object to avoid the obstacle)
Regarding claim 19, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 11, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is the bad weather (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0026], [0035], [0038] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is a certain weather condition)
Regarding claim 20, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 12, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a duration of a state where communication between the movable object and the controller is stopped is longer than or equal to a predetermined period of time (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0025], [0026], [0033], [0038], [0040]-[0042], which discloses a drive state monitor that actively obtains sensor data regarding a vehicle control environment and compares data structures in order to determine whether the driving mode can be changed relative to discovering a switching state (abnormal condition) that may be prompted from, but not limited to, conditions such as four-way stops, stop-and-go traffic (which warrants abrupt stops with no pattern), exceeding a speed limit, presence of other vehicles (overtaking, or switching lanes), etc., the controller according to claim 12, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a duration of a state where communication between the movable object and the controller is stopped is longer than or equal to a predetermined period of time)
Conclusion
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 KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights