DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on November 5, 2024 and October 14, 2025 have been acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an obtainer that obtains …;a processor that calculates …; and an outputter that outputs …” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Further, Examiner notes that a review of the specification reveals that page 13, ln. 25-29 discloses the corresponding structure performing the claimed functions, wherein the specification discloses “processing system 1 includes communicator (outputter) 11,obtainer 12, and processor 13.Communicator 11,obtainer 12, and processor 13 are implemented by a processor that executes programs stored in a memory, a communication interface, and the like.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-15), in view of the first prong of Step 2A, recite “method comprising: obtaining first information related to a service executed by each of at least one mobile body, among a plurality of mobile bodies that move autonomously, when an event to which a responder is to respond by traveling to a position of the at least one mobile body is occurring in the at least one mobile body; calculating, based on the first information obtained, a response necessity level indicating a degree of a necessity to respond to the event, for each of the at least one mobile body; and outputting second information related to the response necessity level calculated.” Claims 1-15, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of collecting information regarding service of a mobile body when a responder is responding an event by traveling to the mobile body, calculating a response necessity level to respond to the event based on the obtained information, and outputting the calculated results.
As a whole, each of these limitations are directed to managing the personal human behavior of a human responder (see p. 14, ln. 18-20, describing the term "responder" refers to a person) responding to an event by observing information regarding the event, calculating the need for the responder to respond, and outputting the need for the responder to respond, and thus, the claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, as a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited collecting information regarding service of a mobile body when a responder is responding an event by traveling to the mobile body, calculating a response necessity level to respond to the event based on the obtained information, and outputting the calculated results could all be reasonably interpreted as a human observing information regarding the mobile body, a human performing an evaluation of the observed information to calculate a necessity level, and a human outputting the result with pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-13 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and outputting information mentally and/or with a pen and paper and certain methods of organizing human activity that manages human behavior. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a]n information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising” in claim 1, “an information terminal … on a display included in the information terminal” in claim 10, “the display” in claim 11, “using the information terminal,” “an operator terminal,” “an image captured by the one mobile body,” and “a display included in the operator terminal” in claim 13, “[a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 1,” and “[a]n information processing system comprising: an obtainer,” “a processor,” and “an outputter” in claim 15; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use/technological environment, namely a generic computing environment. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e., apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at p. 53, ln. 15-26 (describing all of the functions of information processing systems are implemented by integrated circuits, and it possible to use a general purpose processor to achieve circuit integration). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-13 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 14, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al., (US 20220236729 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising ([0019], [0030], [0097]):
obtaining first information related to a service executed by each of at least one mobile body, among a plurality of mobile bodies that move autonomously, when an event to which a responder is to respond by traveling to a position of the at least one mobile body is occurring in the at least one mobile body ([0053]-[0057], upon startup of the autonomous vehicle (step 302) triggers a diagnostics check (step 304) to can check the autonomous vehicles for any issues before the autonomous vehicle picks up a passenger or starts to operate on the road, and the diagnostics check (step 304) runs on a continuous basis to monitor how the autonomous vehicle is operating over time, and the diagnostics check can determine if there are any issues detected (step 306), wherein the diagnostics check can raise a heartbeat event periodically or continuously to check if a system is still alive/functioning properly, and the systems checked respond to the heartbeat event and are logged as response events within a log including diagnostics data for analysis of any issues, e.g., layers of checks can determine that all the hardware for the basics of driving the vehicle, and then periodically and continuously transmit diagnostic data confirm systems are working as desired, wherein diagnostics data can be received from sensors on the autonomous vehicle during a diagnostics check, which can include information on how the sensors or components of the autonomous vehicle are operating);
calculating, based on the first information obtained, a response necessity level indicating a degree of a necessity to respond to the event, for each of the at least one mobile body ([0057], the system can determine the criticality of any detected issues (step 308) wherein models applied to the diagnostics data can analyze the diagnostics data in order to determine what issues the autonomous vehicle is experiencing, [0063]-[0065], in a flowchart representation of criticality determinations for detected issues, in accordance with some embodiments, through a continuous or periodic diagnostics check, if the diagnostics service determines that there are any issues with starting and moving the physical components of the autonomous vehicle (step 352) or sensor calibration values exceed an acceptable range (step 356), then the criticality level is classified as high (step 354), if the diagnostics service detects that there are non-critical warnings produced by hardware within the autonomous vehicle (step 358), then the criticality level is classified as medium (step 360), and if the autonomous vehicle is due for preventative maintenance (step 362), then the criticality level is classified as low (step 364)); and
outputting second information related to the response necessity level calculated ([0058], if the analysis of the diagnostics data determines that an issue is within a high criticality level (310), the system can call the nearest available backup service to pick them up (314), communicate to the passenger (via a pad within the vehicle, a notification within the rideshare application, etc.) they are being provided alternative transportation, call a tow truck to retrieve the vehicle and bring it to a maintenance facility (e.g., the nearest with availability) that can service the vehicle (step 316), and create a work order pre-populated instructions and diagnostics information (step 318)).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), further comprising: obtaining third information related to a status of each of the plurality of mobile bodies; and determining, based on the third information obtained, whether the event is occurring in each of the plurality of mobile bodies ([0045], for each sensor 204 that may be recording an issue, the diagnostic data from that sensor 204 can be compared against successful trips of other cars with that sensor (or unsuccessful trips), this can enable models 214 to constantly learn and improve criticality levels and other insights, such as what is the perfect level of charge, the perfect state of components of autonomous vehicle 202 for the best mileage or passenger experience, etc., [0055], upon startup, the diagnostics check can discover that a particular firmware version is out of data).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 2 (as above), wherein the third information includes information indicating whether each of the plurality of mobile bodies is capable of moving autonomously ([0060], if the analysis of the diagnostics data determines that an issue is within a medium criticality level (step 322), then the autonomous vehicle can finish its current operations before being dispatched to an appropriate maintenance facility, [0056]-[0057], the diagnostics checks may be done at different layers, e.g., first layer, if the diagnostics checks fail, the autonomous vehicle is not allowed or enabled to boot up, and e.g., if the first layer of the diagnostic check fails, then the system can flag the availability of the vehicle, providing information about whether the autonomous vehicle is unavailable for rideshare at all, or whether it's available for rideshare but in need of maintenance soon).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), wherein the first information includes information indicating whether the service is in progress, information indicating an expected completion time of the service, or information indicating a priority level of the service, for each of the at least one mobile body ([0057], the system determines the criticality of any detected issues (step 308), wherein models applied to the diagnostics data can analyze the diagnostics data in order to determine what issues the autonomous vehicle is experiencing, [0052], autonomous vehicle 202 may be queued based on its priority level related to the issue's criticality level, e.g., the queue may populate the top of its queue with the autonomous vehicles of fleet 226 that are suffering from high criticality issues and therefore need to go to a maintenance facility 218 straight away, and autonomous vehicles of fleet 226 with low criticality issues may be pushed further down the queue so that they are dispatched to a maintenance facility 218 when there is extra availability).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), further comprising: obtaining third information related to a status of each of the at least one mobile body and fourth information related to the position of each of the at least one mobile body ([0022], sensor systems include radar sensor systems, global positioning system (GPS) sensor systems, [0040], the internal analysis service 210 of autonomous vehicle 202 can generate one or more models 214 that describe the behavior, operation, or context of the autonomous vehicle 202 based on the diagnostic data, e.g., internal analysis service 210 can determine, based on models 214, the yaw, acceleration, orientation, location, and surroundings (e.g., buildings, people, obstacles, light levels, temperature, sounds, etc.) that describe the health status of the AV sensors 204 and/or the autonomous vehicle 202 based on the diagnostic data, and predict, based on models 214, the remaining usable life of various AV components, such as cameras, radars, and/or lidar); and calculating the response necessity level for each of the at least one mobile body based further on the third information and the fourth information obtained ([0045]-[0046], for each sensor 204 that may be recording an issue, the diagnostic data from that sensor 204 can be compared against successful trips of other cars with that sensor (or unsuccessful trips), this can enable models 214 to constantly learn and improve criticality levels and other insights, such as what is the perfect level of charge, the perfect state of components of autonomous vehicle 202 for the best mileage or passenger experience, etc., diagnostics service 206 can also classify issues flagged by models 214 into different criticality levels).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 6 (as above), further comprising: obtaining fifth information related to a position of the responder; and calculating a response order in which the responder is to respond to the at least one mobile body based on the response necessity level calculated, the fourth information obtained, and the fifth information obtained ([0058], if there are passengers within the autonomous vehicle, the system can call the nearest available backup service to pick them up (step 314), call a tow truck to retrieve the autonomous vehicle and bring it to a nearest maintenance facility (e.g. that has availability for the autonomous vehicle) to service autonomous vehicle (step 316), [0060], if the analysis of the diagnostics data determines that an issue is within a medium criticality level, e.g., when one camera goes out, the autonomous vehicle can still operate safely until the camera is fixed, the autonomous vehicle can complete the drop-off of any passengers (step 324) before dispatching the autonomous vehicle to autonomously drive to, e.g., the nearest maintenance facility that has availability for the autonomous vehicle) (step 326), [0061], within a low criticality level (step 328), at the scheduled work order time, the autonomous vehicle can be dispatched to autonomously drive to the nearest maintenance facility, [0051]-[0052], autonomous vehicle 202 may be queued based on its priority level related to the issue's criticality level, e.g., the top of its queue with the autonomous vehicles of fleet 226 that are suffering from high criticality issues go to a maintenance facility 218 straight away, and low criticality issues may be down the queue so that they are dispatched to a maintenance facility 218 when there is extra availability
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), further comprising: obtaining sixth information related to whether an object is present in a vicinity of each of the at least one mobile body ([0040], the internal analysis service 210 of autonomous vehicle 202 can generate one or more models 214 that describe the behavior, operation, or context of the autonomous vehicle 202 based on the diagnostic data, e.g., internal analysis service 210 can determine, based on models 214, the yaw, acceleration, orientation, location, and surroundings (e.g., buildings, people, obstacles,) and predict, based on models 214, the remaining usable life of various AV components, such as cameras, radars, and/or lidar); and calculating the response necessity level for each of the at least one mobile body based further on the sixth information obtained ([0045]-[0046], for each sensor 204 that may be recording an issue, the diagnostic data from that sensor 204 can be compared against successful trips of other cars with that sensor (or unsuccessful trips), this can enable models 214 to constantly learn and improve criticality levels and other insights, such as what is the perfect level of charge, the perfect state of components of autonomous vehicle 202 for the best mileage or passenger experience, etc., diagnostics service 206 can also classify issues flagged by models 214 into different criticality levels).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), further comprising: obtaining operator input information including the response necessity level, the response necessity level being specified by an operator ([0046], diagnostics service 206 can classify issues flagged by models 214 into different criticality levels, [0041], [0043]-[0044], diagnostics service 206 can detect an operational issue by applying models 214 to the diagnostic data, the diagnostics service 206 can receive input from passengers within autonomous vehicle 202, e.g., a user interface 230, the passenger can indicate at the user interface service 230 an issue with the operation of autonomous vehicle 202, like a quick stop, a jerky turn, etc., and models 214 detecting issues can be supplemented by passenger input); and calculating the response necessity level for each of the at least one mobile body based further on the operator input information obtained ([0046], diagnostics service 206 can classify issues flagged by models 214 into different criticality levels).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute ([0089]-[0090], [0097]-[0099]) the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1, and is, therefore, rejected on the same basis. While claim 15 is directed toward an information processing system, Wang discloses an information processing system as claimed. [0089]-[0090], [0097]-[0099].
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.
Claims 4 & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., (US 20220236729 A1), hereinafter Wang, in view of Dickerson, et al. (US 12269509 B1), hereinafter Dickerson.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 3 (as above). Further, while Wang discloses all of the above and wherein the plurality of mobile bodies are capable of moving in response to a remote operation by an operator ([0035], User interface service 154 can further receive input instructions from an operator that can be sent to the autonomous vehicle 102, and the remote computing system 150 can also include an instruction service 156 for sending instructions regarding the operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, [0030], one or more services of the AV internal computing system 110 are configured to receive communications to remote computing system 150 for such reasons as requesting assistance from a human operator via remote computing system 150), Wang does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Dickerson.
Dickerson teaches wherein the plurality of mobile bodies are capable of moving in response to a remote operation by an operator, and the third information includes information indicating whether each of the plurality of mobile bodies is capable of communicating with the operator (cl. 31, ln. 10-56, after establishing a connection for control signal transmission to the vehicle computing system for remote control of a vehicle operating in an environment, the vehicle computing system determines whether to disconnect the connection based on strength of connection between the first device and the vehicle computing system, e.g., whether a signal strength of a first connection signal meets or exceeds a threshold signal strength).
Wang and Dickerson are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing movement of mobile bodies when assistance is needed by responders. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Wang the ability to include third information indicating whether each of the plurality of mobile bodies is capable of communicating with the operator, as taught by Dickerson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the third information indicating whether each of the plurality of mobile bodies is capable of communicating with the operator, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wang with the aforementioned teachings of Dickerson in order to produce the added benefit of improving the overall safe operation of vehicles. cl. 2, ln. 11-13.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Wang discloses all of the above and further comprising: outputting the second information to an information terminal used by the …, wherein the second information is displayed on a display included in the information terminal ([0058], if the analysis of the diagnostics data determines an issue is within a high criticality level (step 310), the system can call the nearest available backup service to pick them up (step 314), communicate to the passenger (via a pad within the autonomous vehicle, a notification within the rideshare application, etc.) that they are being provided alternative transportation, call a tow truck to retrieve the autonomous vehicle and bring it to a maintenance facility, and create a work order in the maintenance system, [0048], maintenance service 222 can communicate with one or more maintenance facilities 218 to schedule maintenance and communicate with backup service 220 to send a backup vehicle to pick up a stranded passenger, [0096]-[0097], the technology presented as blocks including devices and steps in a method, may be implemented by a hardware or software services that reside in memory of a client), Wang does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Dickerson.
Dickerson teaches further comprising: outputting the second information to an information terminal used by the responder, wherein the second information is displayed on a display included in the information terminal (cl. 7, ln. 31-39, cl. 10, ln. 67-cl. 11, ln. 9, the first operator 104 may operate an operator computing device 106 that includes a remote vehicle guidance interface 108 include a moving map representative of real-time locations of vehicles 102 operating in proximity to the location 120, cl. 24, ln. 24-cl. 25, ln. 31, FIG. 4 is an example user interface 400 of interface 108 associated with operator computing device 106, which includes a remote vehicle controller page 402 with data associated with the operator and/or the device including a location of the operating computing device (e.g., latitude/longitude, address, intersection identifier, road identifier, etc.), a distance to a dispatched location (e.g., 10 meters from location the operator was dispatched, etc.), a map 406 with real time location of vehicles 102 operating within a threshold distance (e.g., 0.6 miles) of the operator eligible to establish a connection with and control, cl. 8, ln. 10-64, remote computing device(s) 114 may determine and cause a first operator 104 to be dispatched to one or more vehicles 102, e.g., to verify safe operation, modify vehicular behavior during recovery of the vehicle that has a maintenance issue, and the remote computing device(s) 114 may send a message and a location 120 to be dispatched to the operator computing device 106 of the first operator 104, which can include a geographic location, an area (e.g., a block, an intersection)).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang and Dickerson are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing movement of mobile bodies when assistance is needed by responders. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Wang the ability to output information to an information terminal used by the responder and display the information on a display included in the information terminal, as taught by Dickerson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of outputting information to an information terminal used by the responder and displaying the information on a display included in the information terminal, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wang with the aforementioned teachings of Dickerson in order to produce the added benefit of improving the overall safe operation of vehicles. cl. 2, ln. 11-13.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Wang and Dickerson teach the information processing method according to claim 10 (as above). Further, while Wang discloses all of the above and wherein information indicating the response necessity level of each of the at least one mobile body ([0057], the system can determine the criticality of any detected issues (step 308) wherein models applied to the diagnostics data can analyze the diagnostics data in order to determine what issues the autonomous vehicle is experiencing), Wang does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Dickerson.
Dickerson teaches wherein information indicating the response necessity … of each of the at least one mobile body and a map indicating the position of each of the at least one mobile body are displayed on the display (cl. 7, ln. 31-39, cl. 10, ln. 67-cl. 11, ln. 9, the first operator 104 may operate an operator computing device 106 that includes a remote vehicle guidance interface 108 include a moving map representative of real-time locations of vehicles 102 operating in proximity to the location 120, cl. 24, ln. 24-cl. 25, ln. 31, FIG. 4 is an example user interface 400 of interface 108 associated with operator computing device 106, which includes a remote vehicle controller page 402 with data a distance to a dispatched location (e.g., 10 meters from location the operator was dispatched, etc.), a map 406 with real time location of vehicles 102 operating within a threshold distance (e.g., 0.6 miles) of the operator eligible to establish a connection with and control, cl. 8, ln. 10-64, remote computing device(s) 114 may determine and cause a first operator 104 to be dispatched to one or more vehicles 102, e.g., to verify safe operation or modify vehicular behavior during recovery of the vehicle that has a maintenance issue, and the remote computing device(s) 114 may send a message and a location 120 to be dispatched to the operator computing device 106 of the first operator 104, which can include a geographic location, an area (e.g., a block, an intersection)).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang and Dickerson are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing movement of mobile bodies when assistance is needed by responders. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Wang the ability for information indicating the response necessity of each mobile body and a map indicating the position of each mobile body to be displayed on the display, as taught by Dickerson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the information indicating the response necessity level of each mobile body and a map indicating the position of each mobile body displayed on the display, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wang with the aforementioned teachings of Dickerson in order to produce the added benefit of improving the overall safe operation of vehicles. cl. 2, ln. 11-13.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Wang and Dickerson teach the information processing method according to claim 10 (as above). Further, Wang teaches further comprising: obtaining fifth information related to a position of the responder; and calculating a response order in which the responder is to respond to the at least one mobile body based on the response necessity level calculated and the fifth information obtained, wherein information indicating the response order is further displayed on the display ([0058], if the analysis of the diagnostics data determines an issue is within a high criticality level (step 310), the system can call the nearest available backup service to pick them up (step 314), communicate to the passenger (via a pad within the autonomous vehicle, a notification within the rideshare application, etc.) that they are being provided alternative transportation, call a tow truck to retrieve the autonomous vehicle and bring it to a maintenance facility, and create a work order in the maintenance system).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Wang and Dickerson teach the information processing method according to claim 10 (as above). Further, while Wang discloses all of the above and the responder will respond to one mobile body among the at least one mobile body ([0058], if the analysis of the diagnostics data determines that an issue is within a high criticality level (310), the system can call the nearest available backup service to pick them up (314), communicate to the passenger (via a pad within the vehicle, a notification within the rideshare application, etc.) they are being provided alternative transportation, call a tow truck to retrieve the vehicle and bring it to a maintenance facility (e.g., the nearest with availability) that can service the vehicle (step 316), and create a work order pre-populated instructions and diagnostics information (step 318)), Wang does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitations, which however, are taught by further teachings in Dickerson.
Dickerson teaches further comprising: outputting, when, using the information terminal, the responder makes an input indicating the responder will respond to one mobile body among the at least one mobile body, response underway information indicating a response to the one mobile body is underway, to an operator terminal used by an operator (cl. 25, ln. 32-50, the map 406 may be configured to enable the operator to select a vehicle of the one or more vehicles 102, for control signal delivery; one or more of the vehicles 102 presented on the map 406 may be be currently connected to and/or receiving a control signal from another operator, and the map 406 may include an indication that the vehicle(s) 102 that are connected to and/or receiving control signals from the other operator), wherein an image captured by the one mobile body (cl. 9, ln. 32-39, sensor data received from one or more vehicles 102 can include image data from cameras, cl. 35, ln. 23-36, a map may include: image data projected onto a mesh, cl. 38, ln. 35-48, cl. the maps 728 may process sensor data, as described above, and may send their outputs to the remote computing device(s) 732, cl. 5, ln. 35-45, the remote vehicle guidance system 132 processes the sensor data from the vehicle and presents of a real-time representation of the environment to the operator, and the operator may evaluate the representation of the environment based on the sensor data, cl. 19, ln. 39-46, a remote operator associated with the remote vehicle guidance system may observe the environment 100 based on the received sensor data) and the response underway information are displayed in a display included in the operator terminal (cl. 25, ln. 32-50, map 406 may include an indication that the vehicle(s) 102 that are connected to and/or receiving control signals from the other operator).
Wang and Dickerson are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing movement of mobile bodies when assistance is needed by responders. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Wang the ability for output response underway information to an operator terminal used by an operator when the responder makes an input, using the information terminal, indicating the responder will respond to one mobile body, as taught by Dickerson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of outputting response underway information to an operator terminal used by an operator when the responder makes an input, using the information terminal, indicating the responder will respond to one mobile body, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wang with the aforementioned teachings of Dickerson in order to produce the added benefit of improving the overall safe operation of vehicles. cl. 2, ln. 11-13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623