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 amendments filed on April 20, 2026. Claims 1, and 6-8 are currently pending, with Claims 1 and 6 being amended, Claims 2-5 being cancelled, and Claims 7-8 being newly added.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed April 20, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous objections to the drawings, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 7-8 are rejected due to their dependencies on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a first server configured to … manage a first time that is used in the first server …”. It is unclear if the first time refers to the time of receipt of the information at the first server, the current time, or a predetermined transmission time. It is further unclear how the first time is managed. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that a server receives information transmitted by a vehicle, and the time of receipt at the first server is the “first time” and the “manage the first time” limitation means that the first server simply records the time at which the information is received.
Claim 1 recites “a second server configured to manage a second time that is used in the second server …”. It is unclear if the second time refers to the time of receipt of the information at the second server, the time stamp of the first time, or a predetermined transmission priority, that is different than that of the first time. It is further unclear how the first time is managed. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the second server receives information from the first server, and the time of receipt at the second server is the “second time” and the “manage the second time” limitation means that the second server simply records the time at which the information is received, for the purposes of confirming validity of data received from other sources before sending to the vehicle.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “determine whether a degree of difference between the first time and the second time is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold …”. It is unclear if the first and second time refer to the time each server receives information, or the latency information between each server. The Examiner is interpreting this language to relate to latency between receipt of communications at the second server, and if the latency is greater than an allowable amount, a server sends out a control command to the vehicle.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0298880 A1, to Kamata, et al (hereinafter referred to as Kamata; newly of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0201336 A1, to Myers, et al (hereinafter referred to as Myers; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, Kamata discloses the features of a system (e.g. Paragraph [0040]; where a self-driving vehicle control system is implemented) comprising:
a moving object including one or more actuators (e.g. Paragraph [0040]; where a self-driving vehicle (30) comprises an actuator (33), which is connected to the ECU (39) via the in-vehicle network, and the actuator can include a drive device for accelerating, a brake actuator for decelerating, a steering motor for steering, a door actuator for opening and closing the doors of the self-driving vehicle (30));
a first server (e.g. Paragraphs [0040], [0044]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) is capable of communicating with a first server (10)) configured to
acquire a position of the moving object and a direction of the moving object (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0083]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) detects its current position, and transmits the driving information, including the current location of the self-driving vehicle to the first server (10)) by
using a detection result regarding the moving object acquired from an external sensor located outside the moving object (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0057]; where map information may be received from outside the self-driving vehicle (30); and where the self-driving vehicle (30) utilizes an external vehicle camera to determine status of the surroundings), and
manage a first time that is used in the first server time (e.g. Paragraph [0103]-[0104]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) receives the second driving instructions from the second server (20) during the period in which the first driving instruction from the first server (10) is valid (i.e., a first time in which the first driving instructions are received)); and
a second server (e.g. Paragraphs [0040], [0044]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) is capable of communicating with a second server (20)) configured to
manage a second time that is used in the second server and is different from the first time (e.g. Paragraph [0103]-[0104], [0110]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) receives the second driving instructions form the second server (20) during the period in which the first driving instruction from the first server (10) is valid, either driving instruction is prioritized (i.e., first and second times); and the system decides which instructions to prioritize based on determining which instruction was received earlier or later);
acquire the position of the moving object, the direction of the moving object, and the first time from the first server (e.g. Paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0107]; where the second server (20) generates the second driving instruction based on the first information received from the self-driving vehicle (30) in addition to the second information received by the second server (20) from the external sensors, where the external sensors acquire status of the surroundings of the self-driving vehicle (30) and the status of the self-driving vehicle (30) itself),
generate, using the position of the moving object and the direction of the moving object, a control value for controlling the moving object (e.g. Paragraph [0040], [0069], [0097]-[0098]; where the second server (20) generates a second driving instruction instructing conditions related to driving control of the self-driving vehicle (30), transmits the instructions to the self-driving vehicle (30)), ‘…’
transmit, to the moving object, the control value to cause the moving object to reduce a moving speed of the moving object ‘…’, wherein the actuators are configured to cause the moving object to reduce the moving speed based on the control value transmitted from the second server (e.g. Paragraph [0102]-[0103]; where the second server transmits the generated second driving instruction to the self-driving vehicle (30), which performs driving control in accordance with the second driving instruction, and when the second driving instructions instructs the vehicle to stop, the vehicle will stop in response).
Kamata fails to disclose every feature of determine whether a degree of difference between the first time and the second time is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold, and transmit, to the moving object, the control value to cause the moving object to reduce a moving speed of the moving object in response to determining that the degree of difference is equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold.
However, Myers, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for transiting to safe operation of a vehicle, where a first timestamp associated with a time of publication is compared with a second timestamp associated with a time at which information is received; and when the latency is equal to or above a threshold, a critical data event is determined, indicating that a latency is longer than allowed, and the critical data event may result in a safe state component issuing a safe state control command, which may cause the vehicle to come to a stop along the trajectory (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0037], [0050], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the self-driving vehicle control system of Kamata, with the feature of stopping the vehicle when a time difference is greater than a threshold in the system of Myers, in order to ensure the vehicle can be controlled to safely stop (see at least Paragraph [0014] of Myers).
As per Claim 6, Kamata discloses the features of a control method for controlling a moving object (e.g. Paragraph [0040], [0110]; where a self-driving vehicle control method is implemented) the control method comprising:
acquiring a position of the moving object and a direction of the moving object (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0083]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) detects its current position, and transmits the driving information, including the current location of the self-driving vehicle to the first server (10)) by
using a detection result regarding the moving object acquired from an external sensor located outside the moving object (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0057]; where map information may be received from outside the self-driving vehicle (30); and where the self-driving vehicle (30) utilizes an external vehicle camera to determine status of the surroundings),
generating, using the position of the moving object and the direction of the moving object, a control value for controlling the moving object (e.g. Paragraph [0040], [0069], [0097]-[0098]; where the second server (20) generates a second driving instruction instructing conditions related to driving control of the self-driving vehicle (30), transmits the instructions to the self-driving vehicle (30)), ‘…’
a first time … the first time being used in a first server (e.g. Paragraphs [0040], [0044], [0103]-[0104]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) is capable of communicating with a first server (10); and where the self-driving vehicle (30) receives the second driving instructions from the second server (20) during the period in which the first driving instruction from the first server (10) is valid (i.e., a first time in which the first driving instructions are received));
a second time … the second time being used in a second server and is different from the first time (e.g. Paragraph [0103]-[0104], [0110]; where the self-driving vehicle (30) receives the second driving instructions form the second server (20) during the period in which the first driving instruction from the first server (10) is valid, either driving instruction is prioritized (i.e., first and second times); and the system decides which instructions to prioritize based on determining which instruction was received earlier or later); and
transmitting, to the moving object, the control value to cause the moving object to reduce a moving speed of the moving object ‘…’, and causing the moving object to reduce the moving speed based on the control value (e.g. Paragraph [0102]-[0103]; where the second server transmits the generated second driving instruction to the self-driving vehicle (30), which performs driving control in accordance with the second driving instruction, and when the second driving instructions instructs the vehicle to stop, the vehicle will stop in response).
Kamata fails to disclose every feature of determining whether a degree of difference between a first time and a second time is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold, and transmitting, to the moving object, the control value to cause the moving object to reduce a moving speed of the moving object in response to determining that the degree of difference is equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold.
However, Myers, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for transiting to safe operation of a vehicle, where a first timestamp associated with a time of publication is compared with a second timestamp associated with a time at which information is received; and when the latency is equal to or above a threshold, a critical data event is determined, indicating that a latency is longer than allowed, and the critical data event may result in a safe state component issuing a safe state control command, which may cause the vehicle to come to a stop along the trajectory (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0037], [0050], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the self-driving vehicle control system of Kamata, with the feature of stopping the vehicle when a time difference is greater than a threshold in the system of Myers, in order to ensure the vehicle can be controlled to safely stop (see at least Paragraph [0014] of Myers).
As per Claim 7, Kamata, in view of Myers, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Kamata further discloses the features of wherein:
the moving object is a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0040]; where a self-driving vehicle (30) comprises an actuator (33), which is connected to the ECU (39) via the in-vehicle network, and the actuator can include a drive device for accelerating, a brake actuator for decelerating, a steering motor for steering, a door actuator for opening and closing the doors of the self-driving vehicle (30)); and
the second server is configured to transmit, to the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0102]-[0103]; where the second server transmits the generated second driving instruction to the self-driving vehicle (30), which performs driving control in accordance with the second driving instruction, and when the second driving instructions instructs the vehicle to stop, the vehicle will stop in response),
the control value for a first actuator of a driving device that accelerates the vehicle, a second actuator of a steering device that changes a traveling direction of the vehicle, and a third actuator of a braking device that decelerates the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0040], [0069], [0097]-[0098]; where the second server (20) generates a second driving instruction instructing conditions related to driving control of the self-driving vehicle (30), transmits the instructions to the self-driving vehicle (30); and where a self-driving vehicle (30) comprises an actuator (33), which is connected to the ECU (39) via the in-vehicle network, and the ECU controls the actuator (33), based on and the actuator can include a drive device for accelerating, a brake actuator for decelerating, a steering motor for steering, a door actuator for opening and closing the doors of the self-driving vehicle (30)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata, in view of Myers, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0028481 A1, to Wu (hereinafter referred to as Wu; newly of record).
As per Claim 8, Kamata, in view of Myers, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Kamata further discloses the features of wherein:
the moving object is a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0040]; where a self-driving vehicle (30) comprises an actuator (33), which is connected to the ECU (39) via the in-vehicle network, and the actuator can include a drive device for accelerating, a brake actuator for decelerating, a steering motor for steering, a door actuator for opening and closing the doors of the self-driving vehicle (30)); and
the first server is configured to: acquire a captured image from the external sensor (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0057]; where map information may be received from outside the self-driving vehicle (30); and where the self-driving vehicle (30) utilizes an external vehicle camera to determine status of the surroundings to generate images of the surroundings), ‘…’ and
acquire the position and the direction of the vehicle using the processed image (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where the external vehicle sensor can generate images by photographing the exterior of the self-driving vehicle (30), and provides the output of the sensors to the vehicle ECU (39)), and
outputs the position and the direction of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where the external vehicle sensor can generate images by photographing the exterior of the self-driving vehicle (30), and provides the output of the sensors to the vehicle ECU (39)).
Kamata, in view of Myers, fails to teach the features of perform preprocessing for detecting the vehicle, and outputs a processed image, the preprocessing being distortion correction processing, rotation processing, and mask processing of the captured image; and acquire the position and the direction of the vehicle using the processed image.
However, Wu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for improving image recognition for a vehicle, where the cameras can be connected to a server, and can transmit data to the server, where image preprocessing is performed on image data received from the cameras, where the processing module can identify distortion parameters, rotation angle skew, translation, motion, and/or optical blur, and unsharp masking, and can perform corrections on the image (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025], [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the self-driving vehicle control system of Kamata, in view of Myers, with the feature of conducting image processing in the system of Wu, in order to improve accuracy of the image detection system (see at least Paragraph [0033] of Myers).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
El Essaili, et al (U.S. 2023/0213933 A1), which teaches a method for receiving a request for tele-operated driving, where a first server processes a request from a client, and identifies a second server which can provide support to the tele-operated driving.
Stenneth, et al (U.S. 2022/0263903 A1), which teaches a method for transmitting telematics data from a vehicle to a remote first server, transmitting the data from the first to a second server, and transmitting a response to the vehicle from the second server.
Yan, et al (U.S. 2023/0164733 A1), which teaches a positioning method, where information is received from a first terminal, sent to a first and second server, and compared.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights