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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/22/2024. Claims 1 - 5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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 parent Application No. JP2023-210779, filed on 12/14/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 1 & 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 3 of copending Application No. US20250190891A1 in view of US20230251649A1 (hereinafter, “Suehiro”). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons highlighted in the table below.
US 20250190891 A1 (Prior Art)
18956023 (Present Application)
1. A remote operation system of remote operation of a plurality of types of mobilities, the remote operation system comprising one or more processors configured to: acquire operator license information indicating a license each of a plurality of remote operators has for operation of the plurality of types of mobilities; acquire required capability information indicating at least a required license required for the remote operation of a target mobility; and assign a first remote operator who has the required license out of the remote operators to the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the operator license information and the required license.
3. The remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to acquire operator state information indicating a state of a remote operator, calculate an operator score indicating suitability of the remote operator for the remote operation, based on the operator state information, and select the first remote operator based on the operator score.
1. A remote operation system for a remote operation of a mobility, wherein: an external operator is a remote operator outside of a remote operation management center that manages the remote operation of the mobility; an external operator terminal is a remote operator terminal configured to be used by the external operator for the remote operation; the remote operation system includes one or a plurality of processors; and the one or a plurality of processors is configured to acquire state information that shows at least one of a state of the external
operator and a state of the external operator terminal, calculate a score that shows a suitability of at least one of the external operator and the external operator terminal with respect to the remote operation based on the state information, and select at least one of a first external operator and a first external operator terminal assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility based on the score.
4. The remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein: there is a plurality of types of the mobility; and the one or a plurality of processors is further configured to acquire operator license information that shows a license of each of a plurality of external operators related to an operation of the plurality of types of the mobility, acquire requested capability information that shows a requested license requested for the remote operation of the target mobility, and select the first external operator having the requested license based on the operator license information and the requested license.
8. Regarding claim 1, copending application US20250190891A1 teaches all limitations of the claim as demonstrated in the table above, with the exception of the limitation "A remote operation system for a remote operation of a mobility, wherein: an external operator is a remote operator outside of a remote operation management center that manages the remote operation of the mobility; an external operator terminal is a remote operator terminal configured to be used by the external operator for the remote operation;". Suehiro teaches a remote operation system for a remote operation of a mobility, wherein ([0062] Fig. 1): Suehiro teaches a remote operation system to remotely operate a vehicle (100).
an external operator is a remote operator outside of a remote operation management center that manages the remote operation of the mobility [0062] – [0065]; Suehiro teaches a remote operator (o) who operates the vehicle (100) based on images transmitted from the vehicle (100). Due to the operator receiving vehicle information through wireless communication links and performing the remote control, the remote operator (o) can be located at a location separate from any type of center or building. Suehiro never mentions any sort of center or building either where the remote operator (o) has to be stationed in to remotely control a vehicle (100).
an external operator terminal is a remote operator terminal configured to be used by the external operator for the remote operation ([0062] Fig. 1); Suehiro teaches a remote operator terminal (200) to be used by the remote operator (o) to remotely operate the vehicle (100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of US20250190891A1 with Suehiro's teaching to have more availability of remote operators outside of the remote operation management center.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220413489A1 (hereinafter, “Nakano”), and further in view of US20200062267A1 (hereinafter, “Magzimof”).
11. Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches a remote operation system for a remote operation of a mobility, wherein ([0027] Fig. 2): Nakano teaches a remote operation system to remotely operate a vehicle (100).
an external operator is a remote operator outside of a remote operation management center that manages the remote operation of the mobility [0062] – [0065]; Nakano teaches a remote operator who operates the vehicle (2). Nakano teaches a remote operation device (1) in which a remote operator would use to remotely control the vehicle (2). Nakano does not discuss the location of this system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that such a remote operator device/terminal may be placed outside of a remote operation management center because it communicates with vehicles via wireless communication [0211] and is thus not reliant on a particular physical infrastructure.
an external operator terminal is a remote operator terminal configured to be used by the external operator for the remote operation ([0027] Fig. 1); Nakano teaches a remote operation device (2) to be used by the remote operator to remotely operate the vehicle (2). Due to this remote operation device (2) having controls to be used by a remote operator to control a vehicle (2), this remote operation device constitutes as a remote operator terminal.
the remote operation system includes one or a plurality of processors; and
the one or a plurality of processors is configured to [0219, [0221] Nakano teaches a CPU (1105) which contains a processing circuit (1101). This processing circuit (1101) and CPU (1105) contain processors.
acquire state information that shows at least one of a state of the external operator and a state of the external operator terminal ([0044] - [0045], [0047] Fig. 2), Nakano teaches on acquiring operator information (112) on whether that operator is qualified to perform remote operation [0047]. Nakano also teaches on acquiring state of the device (111) which is the device that is used to operate remote controlling of the vehicle (2). It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the remote operation device would have a terminal or user interface for the operator to be able to control the vehicle remotely through. Therefore, Nakano teaches on both acquiring state information of the operator and state information of an operator terminal.
12. Nakano teaches …based on the state information, and ([0044] - [0045], [0047] Fig. 2), Nakano teaches on acquiring operator information (112) on whether that operator is qualified to perform remote operation [0047]. Nakano also teaches on acquiring state of the device (111) which is the device that is used to operate remote controlling of the vehicle (2). It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the remote operation device would have a terminal or user interface for the operator to be able to control the vehicle remotely through. Therefore, Nakano teaches on both acquiring state information of the operator and state information of an operator terminal.
Nakano does not explicitly teach calculate a score that shows a suitability of at least one of the external operator and the external operator terminal with respect to the remote operation…
However, Magzimof teaches calculate a score that shows a suitability of at least one of the external operator and the external operator terminal with respect to the remote operation… ([0066], ]0070] Fig. 2 & 6) Magzimof teaches a system for remotely controlled vehicles that scores and ranks remote operators based on performance data collected during driving sessions or prior remote driving sessions [0066]. When a vehicle receives a remote request, the system will identify a vehicle class and retrieves the corresponding operator scores (602) from the remote operator database. The system then matches and assigns the vehicle to the operator having the most optimal score (204) from among the candidate remote operators ([0070] Fig. 6). This scoring method functions by calculating the suitability of remote operators with respect to fulfilling particular remote operation tasks. Therefore, selecting the most appropriate operator for a given remote support session based at least in part on the calculated remote operator scores (204). Such scoring is indicative of the suitability of the operator as related to the remote operation performance.
select at least one of a first external operator and a first external
operator terminal assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility based on the score ([0070] Fig 6). Magzimof selects an operator (202) with the highest score for when selecting an operator to perform a remote operation of a vehicle (102).
Nakano and Magzimof are analogous art because Nakano teaches acquiring operator state information and terminal state information while Magzimof teaches generating a score for a remote operator and ranking that remote operator based on the generated score in a remote operator database. One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine Nakano with Magzimof to improve the reliability and safety of remote vehicle operation. A person of ordinary skill would reocgonize that historical operator performance and current operator/terminal state are relevant factors in determining whether a remote operator should control a vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Nakano with the teachings of Magzimof, to select an operator who best fits the remote operation for reducing any sort of failures that would appear by selecting an operator who wasn’t best suited for that specific remote operation.
13. Nakano teaches the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein the state of the external operator includes at least one of a health state of the external operator ([0047] Fig. 2), a working time the external operator is engaged with the remote operation within a certain time period in past, and an hourly pay of the external operator. Nakano teaches an operator information acquiring unit (112) which acquires a health state of the remote operator.
14. Nakano teaches the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein the state of the external operator terminal includes at least one of a communication state of the external operator terminal [0045] and an abnormality degree of a control device of the external operator terminal. Nakano teaches the device information acquiring unit (111) acquiring the remote operation device state by receiving the output of the remote operation device at a preset cycle. This constitutes as determining a communication state of the external operator terminal because the remote operation device comprises a terminal for the remote operator to remotely control the vehicle (2) as well as confirming if communication (communication state) between the device information acquiring unit (111) and the remote operation device is functional by receiving the output state of the remote operation device.
15. Regarding claim 4, Nakano does not explicitly teach the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein:
there is a plurality of types of the mobility; and
the one or a plurality of processors is further configured to
acquire operator license information that shows a license of each of
a plurality of external operators related to an operation of the plurality of types of the mobility,
acquire requested capability information that shows a requested
license requested for the remote operation of the target mobility, and
select the first external operator having the requested license based
on the operator license information and the requested license.
However, Magzimof in the same field of endeavor, teaches the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein:
there is a plurality of types of the mobility; and ([0036] Fig. 2) Magzimof teaches vehicle classes (203) which comprise of multiple different types of vehicles.
the one or a plurality of processors is further configured to [0084] A single processor or multiple processors may be included for increased computational capabilities.
acquire operator license information that shows a license of each of
a plurality of external operators related to an operation of the plurality of types of the mobility [0060], Magzimof implements a filtering process to ensure that only those operators (202) having the appropriate qualifications for a given vehicle class (203) are considered in the operator selection process. This teaching of filtering and considering which operator (202) possesses the license type required for operation of the vehicle class (203) in the relevant jurisdiction establishes that the system acquires and uses operator licensing information as part of the evaluation, thereby ensuring that only licensed operators (202) for the relevant class of vehicle are ranked and selected for remote control tasks.
acquire requested capability information that shows a requested
license requested for the remote operation of the target mobility, and [0060] Magzimof teaches acquiring requested capability information that identifies the specific license required for remote operation of a target mobility prior to evaluating and filtering through the operators (202). In order for the score calculation module (206) to perform the filtering described, the system must first obtain information regarding the requested capabilities for the remote operation, including the license type required for the particular vehicle class (203) in the target jurisdiction. This implies that the system has acquired, from the remote operation request or associated vehicle information, an indication of what license or capability is requested/required for that remote operation before filtering the plurality of operators (202) against that requirement.
select the first external operator having the requested license based
on the operator license information and the requested license ([0060], [0070] Fig. 6). Magzimof teaches selecting the best operator (603) (first external operator) based on requested license information after going through the filtering process based on license type required for a particular vehicle class (203).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Nakano with the teachings of Magzimof, to determine the correct candidate operator for the vehicle and remote operation to enhance safety.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220413489A1 (hereinafter, “Nakano”), and further in view of US20200062267A1 (hereinafter, “Magzimof”), and further in view of US20200401126A1 (hereinafter, “Cermak”), and further in view of (hereinafter, “Ferguson”).
17. Regarding claim 5, the modified Nakano reference does not explicitly teach the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein:
an internal operator is a remote operator within the remote operation management center;
an internal operator terminal is a remote operator terminal configured to be used by the internal operator for the remote operation;
a prescribed condition includes having a number or proportion of usable internal operators or usable internal operator terminals at or below a threshold; and
when the prescribed condition is established, the one or a plurality of processors assigns the first external operator and the first external operator terminal to the remote operation of the target mobility.
However, Cermak teaches the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein:
an internal operator is a remote operator within the remote operation management center ([0017], [0033] Fig. 1); Cermak teaches having data centers (18) (remote operation management center) where an advisor (58) (internal remote operator) is working from.
an internal operator terminal is a remote operator terminal configured to be used by the internal operator for the remote operation [0032] – [0033]; Advisors (58) (internal operator) will have a variety of other telecommunication/computer equipment (60). This is equipment that will be used for the advisors (58) to be able to remotely control the vehicle (12) from the data center (18). If the advisor (58) has the ability to remotely control the vehicle, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the telecommunication/computer equipment (60) provided would be considered a terminal configured to be used by the advisor (58) to perform remote operations on the vehicle (12).
The modified Nakano reference does not explicitly teach a prescribed condition includes having a number or proportion of usable internal operators or usable internal operator terminals at or below a threshold; and
when the prescribed condition is established, the one or a plurality of processors assigns the first external operator and the first external operator terminal to the remote operation of the target mobility.
However, Ferguson teaches a prescribed condition includes having a number or proportion of usable internal operators or usable internal operator terminals at or below a threshold; and ([0146], [0165] Fig. 17) Ferguson determines when the number of requests for remote human operators is greater than the number of available remote human operators which constitutes as a prescribed condition based on counts of available operators. The comparison of the number of requests relative to the number of available operators teaches the concept of a prescribed condition that evaluates a count of available operators against a threshold (number of available operators) to make an assignment decision. This logic, where the system responds to availability conditions by adjusting assignment behavior, is analogous to determining whether a number of proportion of usable internal operators or terminals is at or below a threshold and performing a responsive action based on that determination.
when the prescribed condition is established, the one or a plurality of processors assigns the first external operator and the first external operator terminal to the remote operation of the target mobility [0023] – [0024], [0137]. Ferguson teaches assigning remote human operators to autonomous land vehicles. The processors will receive requests from multiple autonomous land vehicles asking for remote human operators and determines that the number of requests exceeds the number of available remote human operators. In response to this condition, Ferguson accesses risk ratings associated with the requests and experience information on the available remote human operators and assigns at least some of the available remote human operators to the autonomous vehicles based on those ratings and experiences. The remote human operators can be external remote operators as in what Nakano teaches.
Cermak and Ferguson are analogous art to Nakano because Cermak teaches having data centers where advisors work out from when remotely controlling vehicles while Ferguon teaches having a condition of when the number of requests for remote human operators is greater than the number of available remote human operators and assigning human operators based on risk ratings associated with the requests and experience information. A person of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine Cermak with Ferguson because both address complementary aspects of remote operation systems for autonomous vehicles and would together improve the overall remote functionality. Due to both references relating to teleoperation of autonomous vehicles, one focusing on when and how a human operator should engage (Cermak) and the other focusing on how remote control is initiated based on an operational condition (Ferguson), a person of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine them to develop a system that not only assigns an available human operator to a vehicle request but also initiates and transitions control of the vehicle based on threshold triggers that are taught in Ferguson. Combining both would establish control of the vehicle when a defined condition is met.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cermak and Ferguson, to modify the teachings of the modified Nakano reference to include the teachings of Cermak and Ferguson to improve control and assignment of human operators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm 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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669