DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/976,336 filed on 12/11/2024.
• Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/976,336 filed on 12/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024, 04/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35
U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 6-7 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1, 7 is directed towards a machine, claim 6 is directed towards a method.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites calculating an additional score of the update target mobility based on the acquired surroundings information; and updating the score transmitted from the update target mobility by reflecting the additional score in the score. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a remote support management device”. This limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical relation. That is, other than reciting “a remote support management device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “a remote support management device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at the collected surroundings information data and performing a simple calculation of an additional score of the target mobility, and update the score of the target mobility accordingly. The mere nominal recitation of “a remote support management device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical relation.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim 1 recites additional elements of acquiring a score serving as a basis of the assignment process from the one or more of the mobilities; acquiring surroundings information indicating a status of an area by communicating with one or more infrastructure sensors installed in the area. The acquiring steps from the one or more of the mobilities and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “remote support management device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The remote support management device is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial
Exception?
No. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the infrastructure sensors installed in the area where an update target mobility that has transmitted the score moves are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the remote support management device is anything other than a conventional computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim 2-15are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-4 merely further specifies how to calculate the score and how to assign remote supporter and terminal to each of the mobilities based on the score. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a remote support management device”. This limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical relation and mental process. That is, other than reciting “a remote support management device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “a remote support management device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at the collected surroundings information data and performing a simple calculation of a score of the target mobility, and assign remote supporter and terminal to each of the mobilities based on the score . The mere nominal recitation of “a remote support management device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical relation and mental process.
Claim 5 merely further specifies how to assign remote supporter and terminal to each of the mobilities when they have the same score. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a remote support management device”. This limitation, as drafted, is a mental process. That is, other than reciting “a remote support management device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “a remote support management device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at the request time stamp of each target mobility and make a simple judgement, and assign remote supporter and terminal to each of the mobilities based on the earlier time stamp when they have the same score . The mere nominal recitation of “a remote support management device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200272949A1) in view of Troia (US 20190372622 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7:
Chen teaches:
A remote support management device configured to manage remote support of a plurality of mobilities, the remote support management device comprising one or more first processors configured to: (Chen, claim 1, “A computer-implemented method for controlling autonomous vehicles…request for remote autonomous vehicle assistance associated with a first autonomous vehicle”)
in response to a request for the remote support from one or more mobilities out of the plurality of mobilities, (Chen, Fig.4 and para [85], “The request management system 412 can be configured to process requests 442 for remote assistance and generate one or more control commands 444 for an autonomous computing system 440 of an autonomous vehicle in response to the requests”)
perform an assignment process of assigning at least one of a remote supporter and a remote support terminal to the one or more mobilities that have made the request, the remote support terminal being used by the remote supporter; (Chen, claim 1, “determining, by the computing system, a first operator of the plurality of operators to facilitate one or more assisted autonomy tasks in response to the request for remote autonomous vehicle assistance”, and Fig. 4 depicts the operators and the operator terminals 414 a-c.)
PNG
media_image1.png
680
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
acquire a score serving as a basis of the assignment process from the one or more of the mobilities; (Chen, para [35], “the operator selection system can generate scores … based on whether there exists a match with a request parameter from the request.”)
the update target mobility being a mobility that is target of an update of the score; (Chen, para [34], “receive a request from an autonomous vehicle for remote autonomous assistance” and para [35], “ the operator selection system can generate scores …based on whether there exists a match with a request parameter from the request.”)
calculate an additional score of the update target mobility based on the acquired surroundings information; (Chen, para [39], “The attribute scores may be generated based on … parameters from the request.”, and para [92], “attribute records include …, one or more locations identified by location data”)
and update the score transmitted from the update target mobility by reflecting the additional score in the score. (Chen, para [39],” An operator score can be generated based on a combination of the one or more attribute scores…The attribute scores may be generated based on …one or more resource parameters from the request”, and para[45], “ transmit resource parameters … to an autonomous vehicle assistance system”)
Chen does not explicitly teach, but Troia teaches:
acquire surroundings information indicating a status of an area by communicating with one or more infrastructure sensors installed in the area where an update target mobility that has transmitted the score moves, (Troia, para [09], “vehicles have used sensors, such as vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) sensors, to obtain route information from infrastructure components along a route, such as overhead radio frequency identification (RFID) readers, cameras”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a Remote Autonomous Vehicle Assistance device from Chen to include these above teachings from Troia in order to include acquiring surroundings information indicating a status of an area by communicating with one or more infrastructure sensors installed in the area where an update target mobility that has transmitted the score moves. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide redundancy that can improve vehicle operation, resulting in technological improvements to the vehicle” (Troia, Description).
Regarding claim 3:
Chen inv view of Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chen teaches:
The remote support management device according to claim 1, wherein: the number of types of the plurality of the mobilities is plural; (Chen, para [95], “the vehicle type 518 represents the specific type of vehicle from a variety of vehicle types.”)
and the one or more first processors are configured to, when the score is received from the one or more mobilities: update the score of the update target mobility by reflecting, in the score received from the update target mobility, a weighting value according to a type of the update target mobility that has transmitted the score; (Chen, para [39],” An operator score can be generated based on a combination of the one or more attribute scores”, and para[35], “the remote assistance system can apply a weight to an attribute score based on an elapsed time since the operator attribute was generated (e.g., when the corresponding assisted autonomy task was performed). The remote assistance system can combine the attribute scores (e.g., weighted attribute scores) for an operator to determine an operator score for each operator.”)
and perform the assignment process based on the updated score. (Chen, para[39], “ an operator having a highest score or other indication of a high degree of correlation between operator attributes and resource parameters can be selected.”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200272949A1) in view of Troia (US 20190372622 A1), further in view of Brantner (US 20220014476 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Chen inv view of Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chen teaches:
The remote support management device according to claim 1, …and the assignment process includes assigning at least one of the remote supporter and the remote support terminal to each of the plurality of the mobilities according to assignment order based on the score received from one or more second processors of each of the plurality of the mobilities. (Chen, claim 1, “determining, by the computing system, a first operator of the plurality of operators to facilitate one or more assisted autonomy tasks in response to the request for remote autonomous vehicle assistance”, and para[39], “ an operator having a highest score or other indication of a high degree of correlation between operator attributes and resource parameters can be selected.”)
Chen does not explicitly teach, but Brantner teaches:
wherein: the score indicates an urgency level of the request; (Brantner, para [148], “determining (1204), for the request, an urgency rating”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a Remote Autonomous Vehicle Assistance device from Chen to include these above teachings from Brantner in order to include wherein: the score indicates an urgency level of the request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate human intervention when “the autonomous device are incapable of successfully a) executing a given task” (Brantner, Description).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200272949A1) in view of Troia (US 20190372622 A1), further in view of PERL (US 20180075380 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Chen inv view of Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chen teaches:
The remote support management device according to claim 1, wherein: the number of types of services of the remote support to be provided to the plurality of the mobilities is plural; (Chen, para [95], “the vehicle type 518 represents the specific type of vehicle from a variety of vehicle types.”)
and perform the assignment process based on the updated score. (Chen, para[39], “ an operator having a highest score or other indication of a high degree of correlation between operator attributes and resource parameters can be selected.”)
Chen does not explicitly teach, but PERL teaches:
the score includes a mobility score and a service score, the mobility score being a score based on mobility state information indicating a state of the mobility, and the service score being a score based on service state information indicating a state of the service of the remote support for a user of the mobility; (PERL, para [47], “a mobility score …. services risk score”)
and the one or more first processors are configured to, when the score is received from the one or more mobilities: update the score of the update target mobility based on the mobility score of the update target mobility that reflects a mobility weighting value according to a type of the update target mobility that has transmitted the score and the service score of the update target mobility that reflects a service weighting value according to a type of the service to be provided to the update target mobility; (PERL, para [49], “The result list 108 can be dynamically adapted in real-time”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a Remote Autonomous Vehicle Assistance device from Chen to include these above teachings from PERL in order to include the score includes a mobility score and a service score, the mobility score being a score based on mobility state information indicating a state of the mobility, and the service score being a score based on service state information indicating a state of the service of the remote support for a user of the mobility; and the one or more first processors are configured to, when the score is received from the one or more mobilities: update the score of the update target mobility based on the mobility score of the update target mobility that reflects a mobility weighting value according to a type of the update target mobility that has transmitted the score and the service score of the update target mobility that reflects a service weighting value according to a type of the service to be provided to the update target mobility. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “help to increase safety and improve driving behavior” (PERL, Description).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200272949A1) in view of Troia (US 20190372622 A1), further in view of Brantner (US 20220014476 A1) and Brooks (US5825869A).
Chen in view of Troia and Brantner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Chen teaches:
The remote support management device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more first processors are configured to, when a plurality of mobilities…(Chen, claim 1, “A computer-implemented method for controlling autonomous vehicles”)
Chen in view of Troia and Brantner does not explicitly teach, but Brooks teaches:
when a plurality of …having the same score is present, update the assignment order such that … has requested the remote support at an earlier time ranks in a higher place.( Brooks, Col.2, lines 11-13, “If several calls of equal priority are waiting in a queue, the call which has been waiting the longest is routed to the available agent”) Examiner note: The primary reference of Chen’s vehicle/remote support system that teaches priority/score based assignment of vehicles to remote supporters, and Brooks’ queue management reference showing that it is conventional to break ties among equal priority items by ordering them according to earlier request / longer wait time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify a Remote Autonomous Vehicle Assistance device from Chen to include these above teachings from Brooks in order to include wherein the one or more first processors are configured to, when a plurality of mobilities having the same score is present, update the assignment order such that a mobility that has requested the remote support at an earlier time ranks in a higher place. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently handle the remote requests.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patterson (US12437650B1) teaches a method of managing and tracking scouting tasks to obtain map information using a fleet of autonomous vehicles. The method includes defining, by one or more computing devices, a scouting quest to obtain the map information, the scouting quest including a plurality of scouting objectives, each scouting objective of the plurality of scouting objectives being associated with a geographic location at which sensor data is to be captured.
TONOIKE (US20250060751A1) teaches an information processing method including: obtaining, for each of two or more autonomous mobile bodies, first information related to the autonomous mobile body; estimating, based on the first information, second information indicating a total number of two or more target autonomous mobile bodies beginning to be operated or monitored by a remote operator during a predetermined period.
Nishitani (US12204327B2) teaches a remote driving taxi system provides a mobility service using remote driving taxis that are driven by remote drivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kai Wang whose telephone number is (571) 270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 Eastern.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664