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 .
Claims 1 thru 18 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: From Figure 3, reference characters 100-A, 100-B, O-A and O-B are not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: a management system that selects 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. The management system is interpreted as a plurality of servers that perform distributed processing P[0032], and “The management system 300 includes a communication device 310 and a controller 350.” (Figure 6).
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 thru 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 15 is directed to an operator terminal (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 18 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 18 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A remote operating system for a remote operation of a mobility device, the remote operating system comprising one or more processors configured to:
acquire terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal configured to be used by a remote operator for the remote operation; and
calculate a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation based on the terminal status information, wherein the terminal score is used to select a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could acquire or read status information from a computer or a printout about selecting available remote operators, and then calculate a score for each remote operator that would be used for assigning the operator terminal to a device. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites,
A remote operator terminal used by a remote operator for a remote operation of a mobility device, the remote operator terminal comprising one or more processors configured to:
acquire terminal status information indicating a status of the remote operator terminal;
calculate a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation based on the terminal status information; and
transmit information on the terminal score or information on an integrated score incorporating the terminal score to a management system that selects a first remote operator and a first remote operator terminal, to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could acquire or read status information from a computer or a printout about selecting available remote operators, and then calculate a score for each remote operator that would be used for assigning the operator terminal to a device. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites,
A remote operation management method for a computer to manage a remote operation of a mobility device, the remote operation management method comprising:
acquiring terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal configured to be used by a remote operator for the remote operation;
calculating a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation based on the terminal status information; and
selecting a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device based on the terminal score.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could acquire or read status information from a computer or a printout about selecting available remote operators, then calculate a score for each remote operator that would be used for assigning the operator terminal to a device, and a person would then select the remote operator with the best score. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 1 recites,
A remote operating system for a remote operation of a mobility device, the remote operating system comprising one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to:
acquire terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal configured to be used by a remote operator for the remote operation; and
calculate a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation based on the terminal status information, wherein the terminal score is used to select a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of one or more processors, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites,
A remote operator terminal used by a remote operator for a remote operation of a mobility device, the remote operator terminal comprising one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured to:
acquire terminal status information indicating a status of the remote operator terminal;
calculate a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation based on the terminal status information; and
transmit information on the terminal score or information on an integrated score incorporating the terminal score to a management system that selects a first remote operator and a first remote operator terminal, to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the additional limitation of one or more processors, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of transmit information on the terminal score or information on an integrated score incorporating the terminal score to a management system that selects a first remote operator and a first remote operator terminal, to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 15 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites,
A remote operation management method for a computer (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to manage a remote operation of a mobility device, the remote operation management method comprising:
acquiring terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal configured to be used by a remote operator for the remote operation;
calculating a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation based on the terminal status information; and
selecting a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device based on the terminal score.
Regarding the additional limitation of a computer; this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 18 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 15, and 18 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18 the additional limitations of one or more processors and a computer, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation (claim 15) of transmit information on the terminal score or information on an integrated score incorporating the terminal score to a management system that selects a first remote operator and a first remote operator terminal, to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as they merely consist of data transmitting which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Adding a final step of transmitting information to a process that only recites acquiring information and calculating a score to determine an assignment (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of remote operation of a mobility device. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 14, 16 and 17 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims are directed to the following:
Claim 2 – the status of the remote operator terminal includes a communication status of the remote operator terminal; and the terminal score includes a first terminal score that increases as the communication status of the remote operator terminal gets better. Defining the status information and how the score is determined.
Claim 3 - the status of the remote operator terminal includes an abnormality level of a controller of the remote operator terminal; and the terminal score includes a second terminal score that decreases as the abnormality level increases. Defining the status information and how the score is determined.
Claim 4 - the one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire the terminal status information in real time, and calculate the terminal score in real time.
Claim 5 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire operator status information indicating a status of the remote operator, and calculate an operator score indicating a suitability of the remote operator for the remote operation based on the operator status information; and the operator score is used to select a first remote operator to be assigned to the remote operation of the target mobility device.
Claim 6 - the status of the remote operator includes a health condition of the remote operator; and the operator score includes a first operator score that increases as the health condition of the remote operator gets better. Defining the elements to calculate the operator score.
Claim 7 - the status of the remote operator includes working hours during which the remote operator is involved in the remote operation in a past certain period; and the operator score includes a second operator score that decreases as the working hours extend. Defining the elements to calculate the operator score.
Claim 8 - the status of the remote operator includes an hourly wage of the remote operator; and the operator score includes a third operator score that increases as the hourly wage decreases. Defining the elements to calculate the operator score.
Claim 9 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire the operator status information in real time, and calculate the operator score in real time.
Claim 10 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to calculate an integrated score by integrating the terminal score with the operator score; the integrated score indicates a suitability of a combination of the remote operator terminal for the remote operation and the remote operator for the remote operation; and the integrated score is used to select a combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal, to be assigned to the remote operation of the target mobility device.
Claim 11 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to select a combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal, to be assigned to the remote operation of the target mobility device, based on the terminal score and the operator score.
Claim 12 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals, acquire required capability information indicating required terminal specifications required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, and select the combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal with the required terminal specifications, based on the terminal specification information, the required terminal specifications, the terminal score, and the operator score.
Claim 13 - there are multiple types of mobility devices; and the one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire operator license information indicating a license held by each of a plurality of remote operators in relation to an operation of the multiple types of the mobility devices, acquire required capability information indicating a required license required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, and select the combination of the first remote operator terminal and the first remote operator with the required license, based on the operator license information, the required license, the terminal score, and the operator score.
Claim 14 - the required capability information indicates required terminal specifications required from the remote operation of the target mobility device; and the one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals, and select the combination of the first remote operator having the required license and the first remote operator terminal having the required terminal specifications, based on the operator license information, the terminal specification information, the required capability information, the terminal score, and the operator score.
Claim 16 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to acquire operator status information indicating a status of the remote operator, calculate an operator score indicating a suitability of the remote operator for the remote operation based on the operator status information, and transmit information on the operator score or information on the integrated score incorporating the terminal score and the operator score to the management system (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 17 - one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to calculate the integrated score indicating a suitability of a combination of the remote operator terminal and the remote operator for the remote operation by integrating the terminal score with the operator score, and transmit information on the integrated score to the management system (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
These dependent claim limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
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) 1 thru 6, 8 thru 11 and 15 thru 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0062267 A1 in view of Nakano et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413489 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Magzimof et al teach the claimed remote operating system for remote operation of a mobility device, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a vehicle environment 100 including a plurality of vehicles 102, a remote support server 120 supporting one or more remote support terminals 110, and one or more networks 140 comprising network devices 145.” (P[0018] and Figure 1), the claimed remote operating system comprising one or more processors, “The teleoperation support module 130 and ORSU 135 may each be implemented as one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums that stores instructions executed by one or more processors to perform the functions” (P[0021] and Figure 1), configured to:
the claimed acquire terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal configured to be used by a remote operator for the remote operations, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class. In this process the score calculation module 206 may evaluate an operator score value 204 using experimental tests involving a number of predefined maneuvers and tasks with the operator 202 remotely controlling a designated test vehicle 102 in a controlled environment such as dedicated testing grounds, or in an uncontrolled urban or rural environment. Particularly, a test drive is started 301 and the remote support terminal 110 may issue 302 instructions to the operator 202 to perform a specific maneuver or a navigation task. The score calculation module 206 may collect 303 data utilized for operator scoring. Subsequently, the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data and determines a confidence level associated with the computed score. The confidence level may be based on, for example, the number of iterations that have been completed, a change in the operator score between iterations, an amount of data that has been processed, or other criteria. The confidence level is compared 306 to a predefined threshold.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The score calculation module 206 may compute the scores for each pair of operator 202 and vehicle class 203 individually as operators 202 may possess varying expertise levels with different vehicle classes 203 depending on factors such as steering responsiveness, maximum engine power, dimensions, mass, or wheel base length of a vehicle 102. Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time” (P[0036] and Figure 2); and
the claimed calculate a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for remote operation based on the terminal status information, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The data structure 201 describes a vehicle-to-operator mapping that may be represented as a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to an operator 202, each column corresponds to a vehicle class 203, and each cell contains a value 204 of a score function S 205 determined by a score calculation module 206, and representing a projection of the safety level of a specific pair of an operator 202 and a vehicle class 203. The score function S 205 may comprise a multivariate function, with a higher score implying a better safety projection. The exact expression for the function may be influenced by business requirements, properties of the pool of available operators 202 or other considerations. The score calculation module 206 applies the score function S 205 to a set of data obtained by the data acquisition module 210 to generate the scores and stores the scores to the data structure 201.” P[0036], wherein
the claimed terminal score is used to select a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device, “Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time as specified below. Responsive to receiving a remote support request from a vehicle 102 belonging to a vehicle class 203, the operator assignment module 208 may select an operator 202 to fulfill the request by applying desired filtering and ordering functions to the data structure 201.” P[0036], and “The operator assignment module 208 may then sort the selected list of operators 202 and select 603 the operator 202 with the highest score value to fulfill the remote support request.” P[0070].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed information and scores are for the terminal, but instead teach the information and scores are directed to the operators of the remote support terminals 110. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to apply information and scores for terminals in the same manner as information and scores for the terminal operators.
Nakano et al teach, “The information on the candidate remote operation device acquired by the acquisition unit 11 when the remote operation device 1 is the switching source remote operation device includes information on the state of the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “device state information”) or information on the state of the remote operator operating the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “operator state information”). Specifically, the device information acquiring unit 111 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the device state information, and the operator information acquiring unit 112 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the operator state information.” P[0043], the device state information equates to the claimed terminal status information. The device state information of Nakano et al would be evaluated and scored by Magzimof et al in the same manner as the operators are scored. The terminal scores would then be matched to the different vehicles and the terminal/operator and vehicle combination with the highest score would be selected for the remote operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Regarding claim 2 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed status of the remote operator terminal includes a communication status of the remote operator terminal, and the claimed terminal score includes a first terminal score that increases as the communication status of the remote operator terminal gets better. Nakano et al teach,
the claimed status of the remote operator terminal includes a communication status of the remote operator terminal, “In FIG. 4, in the state illustrated in 303, the remote operator of the candidate remote operation device is seated, is qualified to perform the remote operation of the vehicle 2, and has the good health state. That is, the remote operator of the candidate remote operation device satisfies all of the above (1) to (3). However, the communication delay time between the candidate remote operation device and the vehicle 2 exceeds the non-prime device delay time determination threshold.” (P[0083] and Figure 4), and “in the state illustrated in 304 in FIG. 4, the candidate remote operation device satisfies all of the above (1) to (3), and the communication delay time between the candidate remote operation device and the vehicle 2 is equal to or less than the non-prime device delay time determination threshold” (P[0085] and Figure 4), the device delay time determination threshold equates to the claimed communication status; and
the claimed terminal score includes a first terminal score that increases as the communication status of the remote operator terminal gets better, “the switching destination determining unit 132 may determine, as the switching destination remote operation device, a candidate remote operation device present at a position on a route to the destination of the vehicle 2 and closest to the current location, among the candidate remote operation devices” P[0089], and “for example, the switching destination determining unit 132 determines, as the switching destination remote operation device, a candidate remote operation device having the shortest communication delay time between the candidate remote operation device and the vehicle 2, among the candidate remote operation devices” P[0088], the shortest time delay or the closest remote terminal would have a claimed better first terminal score when applying the scoring of Magzimof et al.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation that includes a communication time delay of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Regarding claim 3 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Magzimof et al teach, wherein
the claimed status of the remote operator terminal includes an abnormality level of a controller of the remote operator terminal, “The score calculation module 206 may compute the scores for each pair of operator 202 and vehicle class 203 individually as operators 202 may possess varying expertise levels with different vehicle classes 203 depending on factors such as steering responsiveness, maximum engine power, dimensions, mass, or wheel base length of a vehicle 102.” P[0036]; and
the claimed terminal score includes a second terminal score that decreases as the abnormality level increases, “the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data and determines a confidence level associated with the computed score. The confidence level may be based on, for example, the number of iterations that have been completed, a change in the operator score between iterations, an amount of data that has been processed, or other criteria. The confidence level is compared 306 to a predefined threshold. If the confidence level of the computed score exceeds a predefined threshold, the score calculation module 206 may store 307 the computed operator score value 204 to the data structure 201. Otherwise, the score calculation module 206 may issue 302 a new instruction to the operator 202 to perform the next maneuver in sequence. In subsequent iterations, the steps of collecting 303 data and computing 304 the operator score may be performed in a cumulative manner.” P[0065].
Magzimof et al do not explicitly teach the claimed controller abnormality level, but does use the levels of operator expertise and the confidence levels of the operators to calculate the scores for selecting a remote operator to control each vehicle. The expertise level has an inverse correlation to an inexperience level, and the confidence level has an inverse correlation to a lack of confidence level (i.e. an increasing lack of confidence level equates to a decreasing score). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al and the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al with score changes based on a level changes of Magzimof et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, predict the specific quality of service that may be expected from each remote operator and to optimize the teleoperation system based on these predictions (Magzimof et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 4 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Magzimof et al teach, wherein the processor are configured to
the claimed acquire the terminal status information in real time, “The vehicle 102 may also comprise various sensors such as optical or infrared cameras, ranging devices such as LIDAR, sonar or radar units, other sensor types allowing real-time acquisition of data on the vehicle environment 100, vehicle 102 components and occupants, that capture image data and other environmental data that may be streamed over one or more networks 140 to a remote support server 120 or to other vehicles 102.” P[0019]; and
the claimed calculate the terminal score in real time, “The score calculation module 206 may furthermore perform real-time computations or updates to the operator score values 204 as operators fulfill remote support requests.” P[0066].
Regarding claim 5 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Magzimof et al teach, wherein the processors are configured to
the claimed acquire operator status information indicating a status of the remote operator, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class. In this process the score calculation module 206 may evaluate an operator score value 204 using experimental tests involving a number of predefined maneuvers and tasks with the operator 202 remotely controlling a designated test vehicle 102 in a controlled environment such as dedicated testing grounds, or in an uncontrolled urban or rural environment….Subsequently, the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data and determines a confidence level associated with the computed score. The confidence level may be based on, for example, the number of iterations that have been completed, a change in the operator score between iterations, an amount of data that has been processed, or other criteria. The confidence level is compared 306 to a predefined threshold.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The score calculation module 206 may compute the scores for each pair of operator 202 and vehicle class 203 individually as operators 202 may possess varying expertise levels with different vehicle classes 203 depending on factors such as steering responsiveness, maximum engine power, dimensions, mass, or wheel base length of a vehicle 102. Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time” (P[0036] and Figure 2);
the claimed calculate an operator score indicating an suitability of the remote operator for remote operation based on the operator status information, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class.” (P[0065] and Figure 3); and
the claimed operator score is used to select a first remote operator to be assigned to the remote operation of the target mobility device, “The data structure 201 describes a vehicle-to-operator mapping that may be represented as a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to an operator 202, each column corresponds to a vehicle class 203, and each cell contains a value 204 of a score function S 205 determined by a score calculation module 206, and representing a projection of the safety level of a specific pair of an operator 202 and a vehicle class 203. The score function S 205 may comprise a multivariate function, with a higher score implying a better safety projection. The exact expression for the function may be influenced by business requirements, properties of the pool of available operators 202 or other considerations. The score calculation module 206 applies the score function S 205 to a set of data obtained by the data acquisition module 210 to generate the scores and stores the scores to the data structure 201.” P[0036].
Regarding claim 6 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 5 (see above). Magzimof et al teach wherein
the claimed status of the remote operator includes a health condition of the remote operator, “the score calculation module 206 may cause the remote support terminal 110 to occasionally display to the operator 202 distractions by adding an augmented reality (AR) signal to the video feed, and continuing to measure operator 202 response. For example, the remote support terminal 110 may display an AR speed hump and monitor the deceleration pattern employed by the operator 202. Such AR layers may also serve the purpose of keeping the operator 202 awake and aware; for example, responsive to the health monitoring system indicating that the operator 202 may have fallen asleep, the remote support server 120 may instruct the remote support terminal 110 to display an AR obstacle and measure the performance of the operator 202 in reacting to it.” P[0067]; and
the claimed operator score includes a first operator score the increase as the health condition of the remote operator gets better, “the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data” P[0065], the collected data would include if the operator is asleep.
Regarding claim 8 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 5 (see above). Magzimof et al teach wherein
the claimed status of the remote operator includes an hourly wage of the remote operator, “the data structure 201 includes a “price tag” field in which each operator 202 may be manually or automatically assigned a price tag 701 that may be expressed as price per unit time, price per one take-over session, or otherwise. The vehicle controller 702 may first send 703 a preliminary information request to the operator assignment module 208, which receives the request. The operator assignment module 208 provides to the vehicle controller 702, a relevant subset 705 of the data structure 201 comprised in part of operator scores and price tags.” P[0078]; and
the claimed operator score includes a third operator score that increase as the hourly wage decreases, “The operator assignment module 208 provides to the vehicle controller 702, a relevant subset 705 of the data structure 201 comprised in part of operator scores and price tags. The vehicle controller 702 receives the relevant subset 705 of the data structure 201 and may then perform 706 a risk and benefit estimation 706 to determine an operator that best meets the criteria of the vehicle controller 702. The vehicle controller 702 submits 707 a remote support request specifying the desired operator 202.” P[0078], and “a process for matching an operator 202 to a vehicle 102 using a commodity exchange approach with operators 202 as takers and vehicle controllers 702 as market makers. In this embodiment, the data structure 201 includes an auxiliary database 803 that stores, for each vehicle class 203, a price tag 801 and a minimum acceptable operator score value 802. An available operator 202 may send 804 an information request to the operator assignment module 208 to retrieve information from the auxiliary database 803 relevant to the operator 202 fulfilling a remote support request. The operator assignment module 208 receives the request and provides 805 the relevant data to the operator 202 (e.g., via a support terminal 110). The operator 202 can then perform 806 a risk/benefit estimation to select a vehicle class 203 or a specific service request meeting its desired criteria. The operator submits 807 a request to the operator assignment module 208 specifying a vehicle class 203 or specific service request that it desires to fulfill. The operator assignment module 208 assigns 808 the operator 202 to a support request based at least in part of the request from the operator 202.” P[0079].
Regarding claim 9 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 5 (see above). Magzimof et al teach, wherein the processor are configured to
the claimed acquire the operator status information in real time, “The vehicle 102 may also comprise various sensors such as optical or infrared cameras, ranging devices such as LIDAR, sonar or radar units, other sensor types allowing real-time acquisition of data on the vehicle environment 100, vehicle 102 components and occupants, that capture image data and other environmental data that may be streamed over one or more networks 140 to a remote support server 120 or to other vehicles 102.” P[0019]; and
the claimed calculate the operator score in real time, “The score calculation module 206 may furthermore perform real-time computations or updates to the operator score values 204 as operators fulfill remote support requests.” P[0066].
Regarding claim 10 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 5 (see above), Magzimof et al teach wherein:
the claimed calculate an integrated score by integrating the terminal score with the operator score, “the score function S205 may in part comprise a function depending on any combination of directly measurable characteristics such as steering wheel reversal rate, gas and brake pedal pressure rate or fluctuation spectrum, voice communication duration per session, as well as derived characteristics such as perception reaction time, problem resolution time, standard deviation of lane position, maximum deviation from lane center, mean standard deviation offset from leading vehicle, heading difference with the roadway” P[0051], “the score function S 205 may in part comprise a function depending on any combination of physiological characteristics such as heart beat rate, skin conductance, eye pupil dilation or constriction, and limb motion deviation from standard models” P[0052], and “the score function S 205 may in part comprise a function depending on any combination of subjective characteristics reported by an operator 202, such as perceived safety or urgency, perceived controllability and self-capability, fatigue or motion sickness” P[0053];
the claimed integrated score indicates a suitability of a combination of the remote operator terminal for remote operation and the remote operator for remote operation, “The data structure 201 describes a vehicle-to-operator mapping that may be represented as a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to an operator 202, each column corresponds to a vehicle class 203, and each cell contains a value 204 of a score function S 205 determined by a score calculation module 206, and representing a projection of the safety level of a specific pair of an operator 202 and a vehicle class 203. The score function S 205 may comprise a multivariate function, with a higher score implying a better safety projection. The exact expression for the function may be influenced by business requirements, properties of the pool of available operators 202 or other considerations. The score calculation module 206 applies the score function S 205 to a set of data obtained by the data acquisition module 210 to generate the scores and stores the scores to the data structure 201.” (P[0036] and Figure 2); and
the claimed integrated score is used to select a combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of the target mobility device, “The operator assignment module 208 may then sort the selected list of operators 202 and select 603 the operator 202 with the highest score value to fulfill the remote support request.: P[0070].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed scores are for the terminal, but instead teach the scores are directed to the operators and the vehicle of the remote support terminals 110. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to apply scores for terminals in the same manner as scores for the terminal operators and the vehicles to be controlled.
Nakano et al teach, “The information on the candidate remote operation device acquired by the acquisition unit 11 when the remote operation device 1 is the switching source remote operation device includes information on the state of the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “device state information”) or information on the state of the remote operator operating the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “operator state information”). Specifically, the device information acquiring unit 111 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the device state information, and the operator information acquiring unit 112 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the operator state information.” P[0043], the device state information equates to the claimed terminal status information. The device state information of Nakano et al would be evaluated and scored by Magzimof et al in the same manner as the operators are scored. The terminal scores would then be matched to the different vehicles and the terminal/operator and vehicle combination with the highest score would be selected for the remote operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Regarding claim 11 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 5 (see above). Magzimof et al teach the claimed select a combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal to be assigned to remote operator of the target mobility device based on the terminal score and the operator score, “ the ORSU 135 may use the available metrics to compute an expected reliability score for a combination of an active remote support request and a remote operator. The ORSU 135 may compute such a reliability score for combinations of the remote support request with a plurality of remote operators, and assign the remote operator possessing the optimal reliability score to fulfill the requested remote support session.” P[0030].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed scores are for the terminal, but instead teach the information and scores are directed to the operators of the remote support terminals 110. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to apply information and scores for terminals in the same manner as information and scores for the terminal operators.
Nakano et al teach, “The information on the candidate remote operation device acquired by the acquisition unit 11 when the remote operation device 1 is the switching source remote operation device includes information on the state of the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “device state information”) or information on the state of the remote operator operating the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “operator state information”). Specifically, the device information acquiring unit 111 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the device state information, and the operator information acquiring unit 112 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the operator state information.” P[0043], the device state information equates to the claimed terminal status information. The device state information of Nakano et al would be evaluated and scored by Magzimof et al in the same manner as the operators are scored. The terminal scores would then be matched to the different vehicles and the terminal/operator and vehicle combination with the highest score would be selected for the remote operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Regarding claim 15 Magzimof et al teach the claimed remote operator terminal used by a remote operator to a remote operation of a mobility device, a remote support terminal 110 (Figure 1) used in “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a vehicle environment 100 including a plurality of vehicles 102, a remote support server 120 supporting one or more remote support terminals 110, and one or more networks 140 comprising network devices 145.” (P[0018] and Figure 1), the claimed remote operator terminal comprising one or more processors, “the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability” P[0084], and “The teleoperation support module 130 and ORSU 135 may each be implemented as one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums that stores instructions executed by one or more processors to perform the functions” (P[0021] and Figure 1), configured to:
the claimed acquire terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class. In this process the score calculation module 206 may evaluate an operator score value 204 using experimental tests involving a number of predefined maneuvers and tasks with the operator 202 remotely controlling a designated test vehicle 102 in a controlled environment such as dedicated testing grounds, or in an uncontrolled urban or rural environment. Particularly, a test drive is started 301 and the remote support terminal 110 may issue 302 instructions to the operator 202 to perform a specific maneuver or a navigation task. The score calculation module 206 may collect 303 data utilized for operator scoring. Subsequently, the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data and determines a confidence level associated with the computed score. The confidence level may be based on, for example, the number of iterations that have been completed, a change in the operator score between iterations, an amount of data that has been processed, or other criteria. The confidence level is compared 306 to a predefined threshold.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The score calculation module 206 may compute the scores for each pair of operator 202 and vehicle class 203 individually as operators 202 may possess varying expertise levels with different vehicle classes 203 depending on factors such as steering responsiveness, maximum engine power, dimensions, mass, or wheel base length of a vehicle 102. Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time” (P[0036] and Figure 2); and
the claimed calculate a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for remote operation based on the terminal status information, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The data structure 201 describes a vehicle-to-operator mapping that may be represented as a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to an operator 202, each column corresponds to a vehicle class 203, and each cell contains a value 204 of a score function S 205 determined by a score calculation module 206, and representing a projection of the safety level of a specific pair of an operator 202 and a vehicle class 203. The score function S 205 may comprise a multivariate function, with a higher score implying a better safety projection. The exact expression for the function may be influenced by business requirements, properties of the pool of available operators 202 or other considerations. The score calculation module 206 applies the score function S 205 to a set of data obtained by the data acquisition module 210 to generate the scores and stores the scores to the data structure 201.” P[0036]; and
the claimed transmit information on the terminal score or information on an integrated score incorporating the terminal score to a management system that selects a first remote operator and a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device, “The remote support server 120 includes a teleoperation support module 130 and an operator ranking and selection (ORSU) unit 135.” P[0021], “The remote support terminals 110, if present, may be coupled to the remote support server 120 via a local area network connection, a direct wired connection, or via a remote connection through the network 140.” P[0025], “Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time as specified below. Responsive to receiving a remote support request from a vehicle 102 belonging to a vehicle class 203, the operator assignment module 208 may select an operator 202 to fulfill the request by applying desired filtering and ordering functions to the data structure 201.” P[0036], and “The operator assignment module 208 may then sort the selected list of operators 202 and select 603 the operator 202 with the highest score value to fulfill the remote support request.” P[0070].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed information and scores are for the terminal, but instead teach the information and scores are directed to the operators or the remote support terminals 110. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to apply information and scores for terminals in the same manner as information and scores for the terminal operators.
Nakano et al teach, “The information on the candidate remote operation device acquired by the acquisition unit 11 when the remote operation device 1 is the switching source remote operation device includes information on the state of the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “device state information”) or information on the state of the remote operator operating the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “operator state information”). Specifically, the device information acquiring unit 111 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the device state information, and the operator information acquiring unit 112 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the operator state information.” P[0043], the device state information equates to the claimed terminal status information. The device state information of Nakano et al would be evaluated and scored by Magzimof et al in the same manner as the operators are scored. The terminal scores would then be matched to the different vehicles and the terminal/operator and vehicle combination with the highest score would be selected for the remote operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Regarding claim 16 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed terminal of claim 15 (see above). Magzimof et al teach, wherein the processors are configured to
the claimed acquire operator status information indicating a status of the remote operator, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class. In this process the score calculation module 206 may evaluate an operator score value 204 using experimental tests involving a number of predefined maneuvers and tasks with the operator 202 remotely controlling a designated test vehicle 102 in a controlled environment such as dedicated testing grounds, or in an uncontrolled urban or rural environment….Subsequently, the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data and determines a confidence level associated with the computed score. The confidence level may be based on, for example, the number of iterations that have been completed, a change in the operator score between iterations, an amount of data that has been processed, or other criteria. The confidence level is compared 306 to a predefined threshold.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The score calculation module 206 may compute the scores for each pair of operator 202 and vehicle class 203 individually as operators 202 may possess varying expertise levels with different vehicle classes 203 depending on factors such as steering responsiveness, maximum engine power, dimensions, mass, or wheel base length of a vehicle 102. Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time” (P[0036] and Figure 2);
the claimed calculate an operator score indicating an suitability of the remote operator for remote operation based on the operator status information, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class.” (P[0065] and Figure 3); and
the claimed transmit information on the operator score or information on the integrated score incorporating the terminal score and the operator score to the management system, “The remote support server 120 includes a teleoperation support module 130 and an operator ranking and selection (ORSU) unit 135.” P[0021], “The remote support terminals 110, if present, may be coupled to the remote support server 120 via a local area network connection, a direct wired connection, or via a remote connection through the network 140.” P[0025], and “The data structure 201 describes a vehicle-to-operator mapping that may be represented as a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to an operator 202, each column corresponds to a vehicle class 203, and each cell contains a value 204 of a score function S 205 determined by a score calculation module 206, and representing a projection of the safety level of a specific pair of an operator 202 and a vehicle class 203. The score function S 205 may comprise a multivariate function, with a higher score implying a better safety projection. The exact expression for the function may be influenced by business requirements, properties of the pool of available operators 202 or other considerations. The score calculation module 206 applies the score function S 205 to a set of data obtained by the data acquisition module 210 to generate the scores and stores the scores to the data structure 201.” P[0036].
Regarding claim 17 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed method of claims 15 and 16 (see above). Magzimof et al teach the claimed calculate the integrated score indicating a combination of the remote operator terminal and the remote operator for remote operation by integrating the terminal score with the operator score, “ the ORSU 135 may use the available metrics to compute an expected reliability score for a combination of an active remote support request and a remote operator. The ORSU 135 may compute such a reliability score for combinations of the remote support request with a plurality of remote operators, and assign the remote operator possessing the optimal reliability score to fulfill the requested remote support session.” P[0030]; and
the claimed transmit information on the integrated score to the management system, “The remote support server 120 includes a teleoperation support module 130 and an operator ranking and selection (ORSU) unit 135.” P[0021], and “The remote support terminals 110, if present, may be coupled to the remote support server 120 via a local area network connection, a direct wired connection, or via a remote connection through the network 140.” P[0025].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed scores are for the terminal, but instead teach the information and scores are directed to the operators of the remote support terminals 110. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to apply information and scores for terminals in the same manner as information and scores for the terminal operators.
Nakano et al teach, “The information on the candidate remote operation device acquired by the acquisition unit 11 when the remote operation device 1 is the switching source remote operation device includes information on the state of the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “device state information”) or information on the state of the remote operator operating the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “operator state information”). Specifically, the device information acquiring unit 111 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the device state information, and the operator information acquiring unit 112 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the operator state information.” P[0043], the device state information equates to the claimed terminal status information. The device state information of Nakano et al would be evaluated and scored by Magzimof et al in the same manner as the operators are scored. The terminal scores would then be matched to the different vehicles and the terminal/operator and vehicle combination with the highest score would be selected for the remote operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Regarding claim 18 Magzimof et al teach the claimed remote operation management method for a computer to manage a remote operation of a mobility device, the processes of Figures 3 thru 8 applied to “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a vehicle environment 100 including a plurality of vehicles 102, a remote support server 120 supporting one or more remote support terminals 110, and one or more networks 140 comprising network devices 145.” (P[0018] and Figure 1), “The teleoperation support module 130 and ORSU 135 may each be implemented as one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums that stores instructions executed by one or more processors to perform the functions” (P[0021] and Figure 1), the method comprising:
the claimed acquiring terminal status information indicating a status of a remote operator terminal configured to be used by a remote operator for the remote operations, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class. In this process the score calculation module 206 may evaluate an operator score value 204 using experimental tests involving a number of predefined maneuvers and tasks with the operator 202 remotely controlling a designated test vehicle 102 in a controlled environment such as dedicated testing grounds, or in an uncontrolled urban or rural environment. Particularly, a test drive is started 301 and the remote support terminal 110 may issue 302 instructions to the operator 202 to perform a specific maneuver or a navigation task. The score calculation module 206 may collect 303 data utilized for operator scoring. Subsequently, the score calculation module 206 computes 304 the operator score value 204 based on the collected data and determines a confidence level associated with the computed score. The confidence level may be based on, for example, the number of iterations that have been completed, a change in the operator score between iterations, an amount of data that has been processed, or other criteria. The confidence level is compared 306 to a predefined threshold.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The score calculation module 206 may compute the scores for each pair of operator 202 and vehicle class 203 individually as operators 202 may possess varying expertise levels with different vehicle classes 203 depending on factors such as steering responsiveness, maximum engine power, dimensions, mass, or wheel base length of a vehicle 102. Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time” (P[0036] and Figure 2); and
the claimed calculating a terminal score indicating a suitability of the remote operator terminal for remote operation based on the terminal status information, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example embodiment of a process performed by the score calculation module 206 for performing a score calculation of a score representing suitability of an operator for operating a vehicle of a particular vehicle class.” (P[0065] and Figure 3), and “The data structure 201 describes a vehicle-to-operator mapping that may be represented as a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to an operator 202, each column corresponds to a vehicle class 203, and each cell contains a value 204 of a score function S 205 determined by a score calculation module 206, and representing a projection of the safety level of a specific pair of an operator 202 and a vehicle class 203. The score function S 205 may comprise a multivariate function, with a higher score implying a better safety projection. The exact expression for the function may be influenced by business requirements, properties of the pool of available operators 202 or other considerations. The score calculation module 206 applies the score function S 205 to a set of data obtained by the data acquisition module 210 to generate the scores and stores the scores to the data structure 201.” P[0036], wherein
the claimed selecting a first remote operator terminal to be assigned to the remote operation of a target mobility device based on the terminal score, “Score values 204 recorded in cells may be updated over time as specified below. Responsive to receiving a remote support request from a vehicle 102 belonging to a vehicle class 203, the operator assignment module 208 may select an operator 202 to fulfill the request by applying desired filtering and ordering functions to the data structure 201.” P[0036], and “The operator assignment module 208 may then sort the selected list of operators 202 and select 603 the operator 202 with the highest score value to fulfill the remote support request.” P[0070].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed information and scores are for the terminal, but instead teach the information and scores are directed to the operators or the remote support terminals 110. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand and be able to apply information and scores for terminals in the same manner as information and scores for the terminal operators.
Nakano et al teach, “The information on the candidate remote operation device acquired by the acquisition unit 11 when the remote operation device 1 is the switching source remote operation device includes information on the state of the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “device state information”) or information on the state of the remote operator operating the candidate remote operation device (hereinafter, referred to as “operator state information”). Specifically, the device information acquiring unit 111 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the device state information, and the operator information acquiring unit 112 of the acquisition unit 11 acquires the operator state information.” P[0043], the device state information equates to the claimed terminal status information. The device state information of Nakano et al would be evaluated and scored by Magzimof et al in the same manner as the operators are scored. The terminal scores would then be matched to the different vehicles and the terminal/operator and vehicle combination with the highest score would be selected for the remote operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al with the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a communication delay for performing the remote operation of the mobile object (Nakano et al P[0007]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0062267 A1 and Nakano et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413489 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Tomonaga et al Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0245584 A1.
Regarding claim 7 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al the claimed system of claims 1 and 5 (see above). Magzimof et al and Nakano et al do not teach the claimed status of the remote operator includes working hours during which the remote operator is involved in remote operation in a past certain period, and the claimed operation score includes a second operator score that decreases as the working hours extend. The examiner interprets the claimed working hours extending past a certain period to include a determination of the extending working time by biometric factors (heartbeat, pulse, respiration, fatigue, concentration, etc.). Variations in these factors would be an indication of reduced performance by the remote operator, and would lead to a decreased score for the remote operator. The condition of the remote operator would be applied to the scoring of the operator in Magzimof et al.
Tomonaga et al teach,
the claimed status of the remote operator includes working hours during which the remote operator is involved in remote operation in a past certain period, “The fatigue level detection unit 442 detects the fatigue level, which is the level of fatigue state of the operator 151 regarding the remote monitoring operation, on the basis of the image supplied by the image sensor 431 and the biometric information supplied by the biometric sensor 432. For example, the fatigue level detection unit 442 detects the fatigue level on the basis of the image of the operator 151, the heartbeat, the pulse, fluctuations in the heartbeat and pulse, the respiratory rate, etc. of the operator 151 in the biometric information, and the like.” P[0236], and the concentration level detected by the concentration level detection unit 441 and the fatigue level detected by the fatigue level detection unit 442 represent the level of dynamic state of the operator 151 that changes over time P[0239]; and
the claimed operation score includes a second operator score that decreases as the working hours extend, “The monitoring state determination unit 523 calculates the proficiency level P in the same manner as the monitoring state determination unit 92. The monitoring state determination unit 523 calculates the state level S on the basis of the arousal level A and the proficiency level P in the concentration level, the fatigue level, and the arousal level A provided by the operator state detection unit 422. For example, the monitoring state determination unit 523 calculates the state level S by multiplying the basic score of the state level S corresponding to the proficiency level P by a correction factor corresponding to the arousal level A. The monitoring state determination unit 523 supplies the state level S to the management apparatus 503.” P[0278].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al and the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al with the fatigue and concentration levels of the remote operator changing the scoring of the operator of Tomonaga et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, assign an appropriate operator to a vehicle on the basis of both the state of a vehicle to be remotely monitored and the state of an operator (Tomonaga et al P[0013]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0062267 A1 and Nakano et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413489 A1 as applied to claims 1, 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Hirai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0391112 A1.
Regarding claim 12 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1, 5 and 11 (see above). Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed acquire terminal specification information indicating specification of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals, the claimed acquire required capability information indicating required terminal specifications required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, and the claimed select the combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal with the required terminal specifications based on the terminal specification information, the required terminal specifications, the terminal score, and the operator score.
Hirai et al teach,
the claimed acquire terminal specification information indicating specification of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals, “The operation terminal 12 is an information processing device capable of remotely operating the robot 14. Here, an example is illustrated in which the operation terminal 12 is a game device (operation terminal 12-1) such as the play station 5 (registered trademark), a smartphone (operation terminal 12-2), or a surgical robot console (operation terminal 12-q). In addition, the operation terminal 12 may be, for example, a PC, a tablet terminal, a dedicated terminal, or the like.” P[0077], and “The operation terminal 12 includes an input unit 121, a detection unit 122, a control unit 123, an output unit 124, a communication unit 125, and a storage unit 126.” (P[0097] and Figure 3);
the claimed acquire required capability information indicating required terminal specifications required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, “FIG. 5 illustrates a configuration example of data of the work condition DB accumulated in the storage unit 205 of the management server 15. The work condition DB is a DB that stores data regarding conditions necessary for remote operation of each work.” (P[0122] and Figure 5), “The work condition DB includes a work content, a communication amount, a communication speed, a Ping value, an allowable delay, an operation terminal, and a display.” P[0123], “The communication amount indicates a communication amount of the operation terminal 12 necessary for execution of each work.” P[0125], “The communication speed indicates a minimum value of a communication speed of the operation terminal 12 necessary for executing each work.” P[0126], “The Ping value indicates an allowable value (maximum value) of a Ping value between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14, which is required in each work. The Ping value is provided as a condition as a criterion for measuring and evaluating a time period required for transmission and reception of data between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14.” P[0127], “The allowable delay indicates an allowable value (maximum value) of delay time (latency) of communication between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14, which is required in each work.” P[0128], “The operation terminal indicates a type of the operation terminal 12 that can be used for remote operation of each work. For example, since the required input device, performance, and the like in the operation terminal 12 differ depending on a type, a specification, and the like of the robot 14, the type of the operation terminal is provided as a condition.” P[0129], and “The display indicates a resolution of a display necessary for remote operation of each work.” P[0130]; and
the claimed select the combination of the first remote operator and the first remote operator terminal with the required terminal specifications based on the terminal specification information, the required terminal specifications, the terminal score, and the operator score, “In step S157, the matching unit 211 determines the operator to which the work is to be requested. For example, among the operator candidates extracted using the selection condition, the matching unit 211 determines the operator having the highest matching degree as the operator to which the work is to be requested.” (P[0227] and Figure 9), and “in a case where there is a plurality of operators with the highest matching degree, the operator is selected on the basis of a distance between the operation terminal 12 to be used and the robot 14 as the remote operation target” P[0228].
The matching and scoring of the operation terminal with the robot of Hirai et al would be combined with the scoring of the operator and the terminal of Magzimof et al and Nakano et al (see above rejection of claim 1) to select the combination of operator, terminal and remote vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al and the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al with the operation terminal and vehicle matching selections of Hirai et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, perform matching between a robot and an operator who performs remote operation (Hirai et al P[0006]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0062267 A1 and Nakano et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413489 A1 as applied to claims 1, 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Igarashi Patent Application Publication Number 2022/317683 A1.
Regarding claim 13 Magzimof et al and Nakano et al teach the claimed system of claims 1, 5 and 11 (see above). Magzimof et al teach the claimed multiple types of mobility devices, “The vehicle 102 comprises a land vehicle (e.g. a car or truck), a seaborne vehicle, a subterranean vehicle, an airborne vehicle, or other vehicle.” P[0019]; and
the processors are configured to: the claimed acquire operator license information indicating a license held by each of a plurality of remote operators in relation to an operation of the multiple types of mobility devices, “the score calculation module 206 may use the filtering process described above to filter operators 202 depending on possession of a license type required for a particular vehicle class 203 in the target jurisdiction” P[0060].
Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed acquire required capability information indicating a required license required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, and the claimed select the combination of the first remote operator terminal and the first remote operator with the required license based on the operator license information, the required license, the terminal score and the operator score.
Igarashi teaches,
the claimed acquire required capability information indicating a required license required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, “The operator database 32 is a database in which operator attributes are registered for each operator. The operator attributes include, for example, the age and sex of the operator, and types of licenses the operator has. The types of licenses include, for example, a standard-sized license, a medium-sized license, a large-sized licenses, a large-sized special license, a traction vehicle license, and the like.” P[0028]; and
the claimed select the combination of the first remote operator terminal and the first remote operator with the required license based on the operator license information, the required license, the terminal score and the operator score, “The matching model 33 is a regression model using evaluation results of operators by users as objective functions and is created based on co-occurrence of user attributes and operator attributes as feature quantities. In the matching model 33, a relationship between user attributes and operator attributes satisfied by a large number of users is statistically modeled. The matching model 33 is updated on the basis of evaluation results of operators by users every time an evaluation result is newly obtained or when predetermined amounts of evaluation results are accumulated.” P[0029].
The matching of the operator with the vehicle of Igarashi would be combined with the scoring of the operator and the terminal of Magzimof et al and Nakano et al (see above rejection of claim 1) to select the combination of operator, terminal and remote vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al and the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al with the operator and vehicle matching selections for licensing of Igarashi in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, recommend a remote operator who may improve user satisfaction to a user when the user uses remote operation service of a vehicle (Igarashi P[0006]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0062267 A1, Nakano et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413489 A1 and Igarashi Patent Application Publication Number 2022/317683 A1 as applied to claims 1, 5, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Hirai et al Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0391112 A1.
Regarding claim 14 Magzimof et al, Nakano et al and Igarashi teach the claimed system of claims 1, 5, 11 and 13 (see above). Magzimof et al do not teach the claimed required capability information indicates required terminal specifications required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, the claimed acquire terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals, and the claimed select the combination of the first remote operator having the required license and the first remote operator terminal with the required terminal specifications based on the operator license information, the terminal specification information, the required capability information, the terminal score, and the operator score.
Hirai et al teach,
the claimed required capability information indicates required terminal specifications required from the remote operation of the target mobility device, “The operation terminal 12 is an information processing device capable of remotely operating the robot 14. Here, an example is illustrated in which the operation terminal 12 is a game device (operation terminal 12-1) such as the play station 5 (registered trademark), a smartphone (operation terminal 12-2), or a surgical robot console (operation terminal 12-q). In addition, the operation terminal 12 may be, for example, a PC, a tablet terminal, a dedicated terminal, or the like.” P[0077], and “The operation terminal 12 includes an input unit 121, a detection unit 122, a control unit 123, an output unit 124, a communication unit 125, and a storage unit 126.” (P[0097] and Figure 3);
the claimed acquire terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals, “FIG. 5 illustrates a configuration example of data of the work condition DB accumulated in the storage unit 205 of the management server 15. The work condition DB is a DB that stores data regarding conditions necessary for remote operation of each work.” (P[0122] and Figure 5), “The work condition DB includes a work content, a communication amount, a communication speed, a Ping value, an allowable delay, an operation terminal, and a display.” P[0123], “The communication amount indicates a communication amount of the operation terminal 12 necessary for execution of each work.” P[0125], “The communication speed indicates a minimum value of a communication speed of the operation terminal 12 necessary for executing each work.” P[0126], “The Ping value indicates an allowable value (maximum value) of a Ping value between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14, which is required in each work. The Ping value is provided as a condition as a criterion for measuring and evaluating a time period required for transmission and reception of data between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14.” P[0127], “The allowable delay indicates an allowable value (maximum value) of delay time (latency) of communication between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14, which is required in each work.” P[0128], “The operation terminal indicates a type of the operation terminal 12 that can be used for remote operation of each work. For example, since the required input device, performance, and the like in the operation terminal 12 differ depending on a type, a specification, and the like of the robot 14, the type of the operation terminal is provided as a condition.” P[0129], and “The display indicates a resolution of a display necessary for remote operation of each work.” P[0130]; and
the claimed select the combination of the first remote operator having the required license and the first remote operator terminal with the required terminal specifications based on the operator license information, the terminal specification information, the required capability information, the terminal score, and the operator score, “In step S157, the matching unit 211 determines the operator to which the work is to be requested. For example, among the operator candidates extracted using the selection condition, the matching unit 211 determines the operator having the highest matching degree as the operator to which the work is to be requested.” (P[0227] and Figure 9), and “in a case where there is a plurality of operators with the highest matching degree, the operator is selected on the basis of a distance between the operation terminal 12 to be used and the robot 14 as the remote operation target” P[0228].
The matching and scoring of the operation terminal with the robot of Hirai et al would be combined with the scoring of the operator and the terminal of Magzimof et al and Nakano et al (see above rejection of claim 1) to select the combination of operator, terminal and remote vehicle; and with Igarashi (see above rejection of claim 13) to combine the license information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the remote support services system of Magzimof et al, the device state information for remote vehicle operation of Nakano et al and the operator and vehicle matching selections for licensing of Igarashi with the operation terminal and vehicle matching selections of Hirai et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, perform matching between a robot and an operator who performs remote operation (Hirai et al P[0006]).
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.
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/974040 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims being examined would be able to be rejected by the claims of the co-pending application (if the application were available as prior art). The current claims are broad enough to encompass the limitations of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 6, 11 thru 16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 4 and 6 thru 8 of copending Application No. 18/970641 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims being examined would be able to be rejected by the claims of the co-pending application (if the application were available as prior art). The current claims are broad enough to encompass the limitations of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13 thru 15 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 4 of copending Application No. 18/956023 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims being examined would be able to be rejected by the claims of the co-pending application (if the application were available as prior art). The current claims are broad enough to encompass the limitations of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/976336 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims being examined would be able to be rejected by the claims of the co-pending application (if the application were available as prior art). The current claims are broad enough to encompass the limitations of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/985785 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims being examined would be able to be rejected by the claims of the co-pending application (if the application were available as prior art). The current claims are broad enough to encompass the limitations of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Related Art
The examiner points to Tonoike et al PGPub 2025/0060751 A1 as related art but not relied upon for any rejection. Tonoike et al is directed to a plurality of remote operator terminals and a plurality of operators controlling a plurality of vehicles (Figure 1), with the operator’s skill level and fatigue level being used to judge the capability of the remote operators (P[0100], P[0193]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights