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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/938,641 filed on 11/06/2024.
• Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/938,641 filed on 11/26/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024, 08/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: information processing device in claim 1 and 10.
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.
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, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 10-11 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a method, claims 10-11 are directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 1, 10-11 recite “estimating, based on the first information, second information indicating a total number of two or more target autonomous mobile bodies beginning to be operated or monitored by a remote operator during a predetermined period, the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies being among the two or more autonomous mobile bodies; determining whether the total number indicated by the second information is greater than or equal to a predetermined value”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “performed in an information processing device”. That is, other than reciting “performed in an information processing device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed in an information processing device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of performed in an information processing device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of obtaining, for each of two or more autonomous mobile bodies, first information related to the autonomous mobile body; and outputting fourth information for providing the remote operator with notification. The obtaining steps from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting results step on the driver display console is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the weather evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “ information processing device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The information processing device is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting data step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims 2-4, 6-9 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5 is eligible because the claim limitation of “causing the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies to temporarily stop; …to change speeds; … to change routes for travel” is not an abstract idea of mental process.
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 (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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) being anticipated by Urano ( US20210041894A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10-11:
Urano teaches:
An information processing method performed in an information processing device, the information processing method comprising: obtaining, for each of two or more autonomous mobile bodies, first information related to the autonomous mobile body; (Urano, para[53], “The autonomous driving ECU 20 is an electronic control unit having a central processing unit (CPU)”, para[05], “monitoring …a plurality of autonomous vehicles to one remote commander in advance.”, and para[68], “The external environment recognition unit 32 recognizes the external environment of the autonomous vehicle”)
estimating, based on the first information, second information indicating a total number of two or more target autonomous mobile bodies beginning to be operated or monitored by a remote operator during a predetermined period, the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies being among the two or more autonomous mobile bodies; (Urano, para[73], “the remote instruction request determination unit 35 determines whether the remote instruction needs to be requested, based on … information on the external environment recognized by the external environment recognition unit”, para [249], “the monitoring time allocation unit 71 determines whether the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations by a plurality of autonomous vehicles ”, and para [10], “ for a certain period of time”) Examiner note: Urano teaches a method of predicting the number of autonomous vehicles will need remote instruction and uses that information to schedule remote operator.
determining whether the total number indicated by the second information is greater than or equal to a predetermined value; (Urano, para [249], “the monitoring time allocation unit 71 determines whether the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations by a plurality of autonomous vehicles 2 is equal to or larger than a commander number threshold. ”)
and outputting at least one of third information for controlling one or more target autonomous mobile bodies among the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies or fourth information for providing the remote operator with notification, (Urano, para [101], “The information output unit 3 a is a device that outputs, to the remote commander R, information used for remote instruction of the autonomous vehicle 2. The information output unit 3 includes a display that outputs images and a speaker that outputs sounds”)
when the total number indicated by the second information is determined to be greater than or equal to the predetermined value. (Urano, para [251], “when the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold”)
Regarding Claim 2:
Urano as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Urano teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first information obtained for each of two or more autonomous mobile bodies includes at least one of: (1) fifth information related to a state and a surrounding environment of the autonomous mobile body; (2) sixth information related to an area in which the autonomous mobile body moves; or (3) seventh information related to a route along which the autonomous mobile body moves. (Urano, para[68], “The external environment recognition unit 32 recognizes the external environment of the autonomous vehicle…The external environment recognition unit 32 can recognize the lighting state of the traffic lights in front of the autonomous vehicle 2 (whether the vehicle is allowed to pass or not)”)
Regarding Claim 3:
Urano as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Urano teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the first information, whether a predetermined control is executable on the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies when the total number indicated by the second information is determined to be greater than or equal to a predetermined value, (Urano, para [272], “When it is determined that the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold (S100: YES), the remote instruction device 301 proceeds to S102”)
wherein in the outputting of the at least one of the third information or the fourth information, the third information is output to the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies when the predetermined control is determined to be executable on the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies, and the fourth information is output to a terminal for providing the remote operator with notification when the predetermined control is determined not to be executable on the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies. (Urano, para [273], “In S102, the remote instruction device 301 uses the monitoring time allocation unit 71 to transmit to the target vehicle a vehicle travel changing instruction to change the vehicle speed plan or the target route of the target vehicle.”)
Regarding Claim 4:
Urano as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Urano teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is at least 2, and the information processing method further comprises: (Urano, para [51], “The number of remote commanders R may be two ”)
obtaining eighth information related to two or more remote operators including the remote operator; (Urano, para [162], “monitoring schedules of two remote commanders.”)
generating, based on the second information, ninth information indicating a result of determining which of the two or more remote operators is to operate or monitor the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies; (Urano, para [162], “the two remote commanders R will be described as remote commanders R1, R2”)
and outputting the ninth information to a terminal for providing the two or more remote operators with notification. (Urano, para [163],” The monitoring time allocation notification unit 47 may notify by displaying an image using a display of the information output unit 3 a”)
Regarding Claim 5:
Urano as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Urano teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the third information includes at least one of: information for causing the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies to temporarily stop; information for causing the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies to change speeds; or information for causing the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies to change routes for travel. (Urano, para [273], “In S102, the remote instruction device 301 uses the monitoring time allocation unit 71 to transmit to the target vehicle a vehicle travel changing instruction to change the vehicle speed plan or the target route of the target vehicle.”)
Regarding Claim 9:
Urano as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Urano teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the fourth information includes at least one of information indicating the predetermined period or information related to the third information. (Urano, para [244], “if the remote commander R cannot issue the remote instruction properly for a certain period of time, the remote commander R in charge of the situation can be replaced by another remote commander R.”)
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano ( US20210041894A1) in view of Balakrishnan (US20210024058A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Urano as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Urano does not explicitly teach, but Balakrishnan teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating, based on the first information, tenth information indicating, for each of the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies, a result of calculating at least one of (i) a degree of safety when the target autonomous mobile body executes a predetermined control, or (ii) a degree of influence on the two or more autonomous mobile bodies when the target autonomous mobile body executes the predetermined control; (Balakrishnan, para[27], “metrics of safety performance can be determined and compared among different vehicles”)
and determining the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies based on the tenth information. (Balakrishnan, para[52], “ the risk identification module 208 may associate one or more risk sources 110 identified for the vehicle”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Urano to include these above teachings from Balakrishnan in order to include generating, based on the first information, tenth information indicating, for each of the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies, a result of calculating at least one of (i) a degree of safety when the target autonomous mobile body executes a predetermined control, or (ii) a degree of influence on the two or more autonomous mobile bodies when the target autonomous mobile body executes the predetermined control; and determining the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies based on the tenth information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine a safety performance of the vehicle” (Balakrishnan, Description).
Regarding Claim 7:
Urano in view of Balakrishnan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Urano does not explicitly teach, but Balakrishnan teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 6, wherein in the determining of the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies, a target autonomous mobile body having a high calculated degree of safety among the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies is determined as the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies.(Balakrishnan, para[52], “by collecting data for both the vehicle 102 and other vehicles in the surrounding environment 104 over the same time period, the technology 100 can compare the risk score or safety performance, or both, for the vehicle and other vehicles. In doing so, the technology 100 can evaluate the relative safety performance of the vehicle 102 and other vehicles in the environment” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Urano to include these above teachings from Balakrishnan in order to include wherein in the determining of the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies, a target autonomous mobile body having a high calculated degree of safety among the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies is determined as the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine a safety performance of the vehicle” (Balakrishnan, Description).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano ( US20210041894A1) in view of Balakrishnan (US20210024058A1), further in view of Sakai (US20200118433A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Urano in view of Balakrishnan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Urano does not explicitly teach, but Sakai teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 6, wherein in the determining of the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies, a target autonomous mobile body having a low calculated degree of influence among the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies is determined as the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies.( Sakai, para [54], “influence level is calculated for the target vehicles”) Examiner note: Sakai teaches how to calculate influence level among the target vehicles, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple judgement to determine which vehicle has a lower value of influence level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an information processing device from Urano to include these above teachings from Sakai in order to include wherein in the determining of the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies, a target autonomous mobile body having a low calculated degree of influence among the two or more target autonomous mobile bodies is determined as the one or more target autonomous mobile bodies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a drive assistance system that enables to provide more appropriate drive assistance.” (Sakai, Description).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stenneth (US9720418B2) teaches an autonomous vehicle may be partially controlled or monitored by a remote endpoint assigned to the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle sends one or more assisted driving messages directly to the autonomous vehicle or through a server. The server may identify multiple potential remote driving endpoints and assign one or more of the potential remote driving endpoints to the autonomous vehicle. The one or more potential remote driving endpoints return a command to the autonomous vehicle directly or through the server.
Liu (US10599141B2) teaches a teleoperation system that interacts with an AV system to handle various types of events, some of which may induce risks (e.g., collisions, traffic jams and damages) or may prohibit or inhibit the AV that is part of the AV system from traveling along a planned trajectory.
Goyal (US20220137623A1) teaches a control system for an autonomous vehicle. The control system includes a self-driving system and one or more computing devices in communication with the self-driving system. The one or more computing devices are configured to detect, using a detection system, a rail agent in a vicinity of the autonomous vehicle; determine one or more tracks on which the detected rail agent is possibly traveling; predict possible paths for the rail agent based on the determined one or more tracks; determine one or more motion paths for one or more probable paths from the possible paths; determine a likelihood for each of the one or more probable paths based on each motion plan; and determine a path for the autonomous vehicle based on a most probable path associated with a highest likelihood for the rail agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667