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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, these claims recite “a request”. It is unclear if “a request” in claims 6 and 9 refer to “a request” in claim 5 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a request”, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a request” in claims 6 and 9 to mean “the request”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites
“A remote operations system for a fleet of vehicles, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the remote operations system to:
receive a first request for remote operator assistance from a first vehicle, the first request associated with a first event encountered by the first vehicle;
receive a second request for remote operator assistance from a second vehicle, the second request associated with a second event encountered by the second vehicle;
determine a first score associated with the first request;
associate the first request with a queue of remote operator requests, an order of the first request within the queue based at least in part on the first score;
determine, based at least in part on remote operator data comprising remote operator availability, a remote operator to process a first queued request from the queue; and
transmit the first queued request to the remote operator based at least in part on the remote operator data and a queue order, wherein the queue order comprises a priority associated with at least one of a safety determination, a score filter applied to individual queued requests, or a vehicle occupancy status”.
The limitation of determining a first score and determining a remote operator, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a remote operations system, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the remote operation system determining a score and remote operator in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of determining an urgency score associated with a remote support request and determining the best fit remote operator in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a remote operations system to perform receiving, determining, associating, and transmitting. The remote operations system in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing generic computer functions of receiving, determining, associating, and transmitting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a remote operations system, a fleet of vehicles, a processor, and a memory, to perform receiving, determining, associating, and transmitting, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a remote operation device, a computing device, and a vehicle, which amount to generic computer components. The dependent claims recite receiving credentials and receiving an acceptance from a remote operator. These additional tasks are extra-solution activity in the form of data transmission and receiving, which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the vehicle based on the remote operator. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Also, please note claims 9 and 14 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 9 recites an improvement in a computer’s communication latency as detailed in the specification. Claim 14 recites an improvement in the technological field of remote operators to quickly understand the situation of the requesting vehicle as detailed in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawler (US 10775783 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lawler discloses a remote operations system for a fleet of vehicles, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the remote operations system to (Col. 5 Line 18 – Col. 6 Line 10, Col. 7 Line 30 – Col. 7 Line 42, Figs. 1-2; Remote operations system is mapped to servers, human operator portals, and vehicles; It is obvious that a server has a processor, and a memory with processor-executable instructions);
receive a first request for remote operator assistance from a first vehicle, the first request associated with a first event encountered by the first vehicle (Col. 3 Line 58 – Col. 4 Line 24, Col. 5 Line 32 – Col. 5 Line 56, Col. 7 Line 30 – Col. 7 Line 42);
receive a second request for remote operator assistance from a second vehicle, the second request associated with a second event encountered by the second vehicle (Col. 3 Line 58 – Col. 4 Line 24, Col. 5 Line 32 – Col. 5 Line 56, Col. 7 Line 30 – Col. 7 Line 42; “service incoming communication from vehicles. When the number of vehicles is large, say more than 10,000”);
determine a first score associated with the first request (Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29; “It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism”);
associate the first request with a queue of remote operator requests, an order of the first request within the queue based at least in part on the first score (Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29; “It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism”);
determine, based at least in part on remote operator data comprising remote operator availability, a remote operator to process a first queued request from the queue (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57; “Service requests are passed to 402, a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators”);
transmit the first queued request to the remote operator based at least in part on the remote operator data and a queue order, wherein the queue order comprises a priority associated with at least one of a safety determination, a score filter applied to individual queued requests, or a vehicle occupancy status (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29; “a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators. It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism which allocates vehicle requests to human operators”).
Regarding claim 2, Lawler discloses the processor-executable instructions further configure the remote operations system to (Col. 5 Line 18 – Col. 6 Line 10, Col. 7 Line 30 – Col. 7 Line 42, Figs. 1-2);
receive a credential associated with the remote operator indicating a level of experience of the remote operator, and wherein determining the remote operator is further based on the credential (Abstract; “The service queue triages remote vehicle control requests based on factors including skill level of available human vehicle operators”).
Regarding claim 4, Lawler discloses the first score is determined using at least one of: a request time; environment data; mission status data; or a passenger status (Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 8 Line 9 – Col. 8 Line 27; “It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism”).
Regarding claim 5, Lawler discloses a method, comprising (Claim 1);
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 8, Lawler discloses the remote operations data comprises: a physical location of the remote operator relative to a location of a respective vehicle with which the transmitted request is associated; a current network connection speed to a computing device associated with the remote operator; an availability of the remote operator; an experience of the remote operator with respect to an event type; an experience of the remote operator with a type of vehicle; or a duration of experience of the remote operator (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57).
Regarding claim 10, Lawler discloses determining the remote operator comprises determining a plurality of remote operators; conveying the transmitted request is to the plurality of remote operators (Col. 8 Line 9 – Col. 8 Line 27; “The system will not assign multiple operators to a vehicle, unless so desired. (Perhaps it will be necessary to buddy-up to remove the potential for operator error. It is conceivable a multi-operator vehicle such as a commercial airliner or a fire engine will be automated.)”);
and the method further comprises receiving an acceptance of the transmitted request from a first remote operator of the plurality of remote operators (Col. 7 Line 58 – Col. 7 Line 65, Col. 8 Line 9 – Col. 8 Line 27; “the option will exist to give human operators discretion in choosing a vehicle to assist”).
Regarding claim 11, Lawler discloses the plurality of remote operators is selected based on the plurality of remote operators meeting one or more requirements associated with the transmitted request (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57, Col. 8 Line 9 – Col. 8 Line 50).
Regarding claim 12, Lawler discloses the one or more requirements comprise at least one of: experience with a vehicle type, an experience level of the remote operator; specialized training; or availability of the plurality of remote operators (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57, Col. 8 Line 9 – Col. 8 Line 50).
Regarding claim 13, Lawler discloses determining the score is based on at least one of: a request time, a speed of a vehicle sending the request, a location of the vehicle sending the request, an emergency status of the vehicle sending the request, a vehicle operating environment, or a passenger status (Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 8 Line 9 – Col. 8 Line 27; “It may queue requests by some priority score, with secondary matching by time priority, or any other scoring mechanism”).
Regarding claim 14, Lawler discloses transmitting the first queued request to the remote operator comprises conveying sensor data gathered by a sensor associated with at least one of a first autonomous vehicle or a second autonomous vehicle (Col. 5 Line 32 – Col. 6 Line 29, Fig. 2; “various I/O devices present with the vehicle, including local speakers, local microphones, local video capture devices, local video presentation screens, local steering systems, local accelerators, local braking systems, local signature/signing devices, etc., which correspond to systems on the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 15, Lawler discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising (Col. 5 Line 18 – Col. 6 Line 10, Figs. 1-2; It is obvious that a server has a processor, and a memory with processor-executable instructions);
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 10. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 11. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 8. Please see the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites:
“The remote operations system of claim 1, wherein the priority is further associated with a queued request being returned to the queue with a higher priority after being transmitted to the remote operator”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Lawler discloses matching vehicle requests with available remote operators (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57; “Service requests are passed to 402, a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators”).
However, Lawler does not specifically state returning the request to the queue.
Weslosky (US 20190227569 A1) teaches reassigning requests to another remote operator (Paragraph 0094; “a remote operator is going offline and allow one or more tasks to be reassigned to another remote operator”).
However, Weslosky does not specifically state returning the request to the queue.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 3 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 3 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 6 recites allowable subject matter because this claim recites similar allowable subject found in claim 3.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 recites (emphasis added):
“The method of claim 5, further comprising:
maintaining the transmitted request at a remote operation device associated with the remote operator after the transmitted request returns to the queue; and
removing the transmitted request from the remote operation device in response to the transmitted request being removed from the queue.”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Lawler discloses matching vehicle requests with available remote operators (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57; “Service requests are passed to 402, a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators”).
However, Lawler does not specifically state returning the transmitted request to the queue.
Weslosky (US 20190227569 A1) teaches reassigning requests to another remote operator (Paragraph 0094; “a remote operator is going offline and allow one or more tasks to be reassigned to another remote operator”).
However, Weslosky does not specifically state returning the transmitted request to the queue.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 7 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 7 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 17 recites allowable subject matter because this claim recites similar allowable subject found in claim 7.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites (emphasis added):
“The method of claim 5, wherein the remote operations data comprises:
a physical location of the remote operator relative to a location of a respective autonomous vehicle with which the transmitted request is associated; and
an availability of the remote operator to service a request,
wherein determining the remote operator comprises determining a remote operator that is currently available and closest to the respective autonomous vehicle”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Lawler discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle from a remote location.
However, Lawler does not specifically state determining a remote operator that is closest to the autonomous vehicle.
Goldman (US 20240036571 A1) teaches selecting a remote operator that is located closest to the requesting vehicle to reduce latency.
However, the filing date of Goldman is not valid as prior art.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 9 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 9 recites allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 recites (emphasis added):
“The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, further comprising:
determining that the remote operator has not responded to the transmitted request within a predetermined period of time;
returning the transmitted request to the queue; and
reprioritizing the transmitted request relative to other requests in the queue”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Lawler discloses matching vehicle requests with available remote operators (Abstract, Col. 6 Lines 10 – Col. 6 Line 29, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 7 Line 57; “Service requests are passed to 402, a queuing mechanism, which matches available operators to groups of remote operators”).
However, Lawler does not specifically state returning the transmitted request to the queue.
Balachandran (US 20220164720 A1) teaches determining that the remote operator has not responded to the transmitted request within a predetermined period of time (Paragraphs 0012, 0048, 0059; “The response times may also be converted to response rates by the server computing devices 410. For example, 99% of the time, passenger support agents may have responded to passenger requests for assistance within 10 seconds”).
However, Balachandran does not specifically state returning the transmitted request to the queue.
Weslosky (US 20190227569 A1) teaches reassigning requests to another remote operator (Paragraph 0094; “a remote operator is going offline and allow one or more tasks to be reassigned to another remote operator”).
However, Weslosky does not specifically state returning the transmitted request to the queue.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 16 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 16 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 17 recites allowable subject matter based upon its dependency from claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights