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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 7/6/2026. Currently claims 1-14 are pending and claims 1, 13, 14 are independent. Claims 1, 13, 14 have been amended from the previous claim set dated 12/18/2024. No claims have been added or cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-219145, filed on 12/26/2023.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-14, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-12) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 13 is directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 14 is directed to a statutory category, namely a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 13, and 14, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “Concepts relating to commercial or legal interactions (including: advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to manage and analyze the assigning of operators to remotely operate a moving vehicle. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that an operations manager might perform for a vehicle support/assistance business (e.g. OnStar). The abstract elements of claims 1, 13, and 14, recite in part “Determine if there is an abnormality…Set abnormal score and transmit…Calculate score…Transmit score…Determine assignment order…Assign remote supporter”. Dependent claims 2-12, add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Assign according to order…Score includes urgency…Calculate score…Set Score…State information includes…Score includes…Perform control…User state information includes…Increase score…Service state information includes…Normalize state information…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 13, and 14.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 13, and 14, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Management device…Processors…Computer…Support terminal…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These claims also include the additional element which recites in part “mobility,” however this again fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is merely limiting the abstract idea to the general field of use of vehicles (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 13, and 14, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Management device…Processors…Computer…Support terminal…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and analyze the assigning of operators to remotely operate a moving vehicle) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0029] – “Examples of the processor 150 include a general purpose processor.”
These claims also include the additional element which recites in part “mobility,” however this again is not significantly more than the abstract idea because it is merely limiting the abstract idea to the general field of use of vehicles (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al. (US 11214265 B2) in view of Mertens (US 12158756 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Magzimof discloses a mobility configured to receive remote support via a management device (Magzimof ABS - A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles), the mobility comprising one or more processors configured to: calculate a score serving as a basis of an assignment process performed by the management device (Magzimof COL 6 ROW 17 - FIG. 2 is an example embodiment of an ORSU 135. The ORSU 135 comprises a score function S 205, a score calculation module 206, a data acquisition module 210, a data structure 201, and an operator assignment module 208. Alternative embodiments may include different or additional modules), the assignment process being a process of assigning at least one of a remote supporter and a remote support terminal to the mobility, and the remote support terminal being used by the remote supporter (Magzimof COL 13 ROW 59 - 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)); and transmit the calculated score to the management device (Magzimof Fig. 2).
Magzimof lacks determine whether there is an abnormality in a remote support function of the mobility; when there is an abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility, set a predetermined abnormal value as the score, and transmit the score to the management device via a communication device; when there is no abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility.
Mertens, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determine whether there is an abnormality in a remote support function of the mobility; when there is an abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility, set a predetermined abnormal value as the score, and transmit the score to the management device via a communication device; when there is no abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility (Mertens COL 20 ROW 34 - At operation 514, the process 500 includes determining whether a remote operator response is received within a threshold time. The remote operator may respond to a notification or request to accept the remote operation request and begin resolving the issue that resulted in the remote operations request. A lack of input during the threshold period of time or other unresponsiveness over a period of time may result in the remote operator being considered to not have responded to the request. In the event that the remote operator does not respond within the threshold, the process 500 proceeds to operation 516. In the event the remote operator responds, the process 500 proceeds to operation 520. At operation 516, the process 500 includes withdrawing the conveyed request in response to the remote operator being unresponsive to the first queued request. As described herein, the request may time out at the remote operator station after a predetermined period of time. In some examples, after a user has accepted the request, if no input is provided to the autonomous vehicle within a period of time then the request may be returned to the queue).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Mertens because Mertens discloses “The techniques discussed herein may facilitate prioritizing and generating a queue of requests for assistance, assigning remote operators remote operator to service a request, and rapidly apprising the assigned remote operator of a situation at a respective driverless vehicle to obtain real-time guidance for the driverless vehicle that does not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle (Mertens COL 1 ROW 43)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Mertens discloses because it would improve the customer experience by removing delays.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al. (US 11214265 B2) in view of Mertens (US 12158756 B1) in view of Fernandez-Moral (EP 4187342 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Magzimof in view of Mertens discloses the assignment process includes assigning at least one of the remote supporter and the remote support terminal to each of a plurality of mobilities including the mobility according to assignment order based on the score from each of the mobilities (Magzimof COL 11 ROW 51 - FIG. 6 illustrates a first embodiment of a process for assigning an operator to a remote support request. A remote support request is received 601 from a vehicle 102. Responsive to the request, the operator assignment module 208 may retrieve 602 the currently available operators 202 using their operator score values 204 as applied to the vehicle requesting remote support. 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. The operator assignment module 208 then initiates 604 a remote support session and starts 605 a confirmation timer while awaiting operator confirmation or other positive action signal. Responsive to receiving 606 the confirmation signal, the operator assignment module 208 may enable 607 the teleoperator support module 130 to handle the remote support session for processing the request).
Magzimof in view of Mertens lacks the score calculated by the one or more processors indicates an urgency level of a request for the remote support from each of the mobilities, and serves as a basis of setting of the assignment order.
Fernandez-Moral, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the score calculated by the one or more processors indicates an urgency level of a request for the remote support from each of the mobilities, and serves as a basis of setting of the assignment order (FERNANDEZ-MORAL- The priority score may be determined, e.g., based on the type of the incident and the urgency of the assistance so that, e.g., if more than one support request from different vehicles should be received by a single recipient, the recipient can decide about which support request should have priority).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Fernandez-Moral because Fernandez-Moral discloses “This has the advantages that the system of the present disclosure can rely on existing infrastructure which saves costs and does not require to build an own network (Fernandez-Moral)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Fernandez-Moral discloses because it would enable the system of Magzimof to leverage existing network infrastructure and save on costs.
Regarding claim 3, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses a mobility configured to receive remote support via a management device (Magzimof ABS - A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles).
Fernandez-Moral further teaches the one or more processors are configured to calculate the score based on mobility state information indicating a state of the mobility (FERNANDEZ-MORAL - A preferred operation procedure/method may include the following steps: when the support request unit detects that the ego-vehicle is in a high risk area, or that a component has a malfunction {i.e. mobility state}, the support request unit outputs the support request indicating the need for V2V teleoperation to another vehicle in which an operator (driver) is on board).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Fernandez-Moral because Fernandez-Moral discloses “This has the advantages that the system of the present disclosure can rely on existing infrastructure which saves costs and does not require to build an own network (Fernandez-Moral)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Fernandez-Moral discloses because it would enable the system of Magzimof to leverage existing network infrastructure and save on costs.
Regarding claim 4, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses service state information indicating a state of a service of the remote support for the user (Magzimof COL 5 ROW 37 - In a further embodiment, the ORSU 135 facilitates selection of an operator via a remote operator marketplace. Responsive to a remote support request, the ORSU 135 may return a database of remote operator identifiers, their respective reliability scores and service fees applicable to the request such that a vehicle controller may subsequently select a desired operator to service the remote support request based on an arbitrary cost/benefit estimation).
Mertens further teaches the one or more processors are configured to calculate the score based on at least one of user state information indicating a state of a user of the mobility (Mertens COL 16 ROW 40 - In some examples, the credentials may be associated with situations, environments, vehicle types, and/or qualifications with which the remote operator 150 has experience. The credentials 314 may, for example, describe qualifications for interacting with different vehicle types, levels of seniority or experience, or other such qualifications (e.g., emergency medical experience {i.e. health of user – State of user}, technical knowledge, etc.) that may relate to what requests the remote operator is able to resolve. In such examples, the queue interface 308 may filter available remote operators for assigning requests based on the credentials and the availability of the respective remote operator 150(a) and/or remote operator 150(b)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Mertens because Mertens discloses “The techniques discussed herein may facilitate prioritizing and generating a queue of requests for assistance, assigning remote operators remote operator to service a request, and rapidly apprising the assigned remote operator of a situation at a respective driverless vehicle to obtain real-time guidance for the driverless vehicle that does not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle (Mertens COL 1 ROW 43)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Mertens discloses because it would improve the customer experience by removing delays.
Regarding claim 5, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses the one or more processors are configured to, when a user in the mobility requests the remote support by operating an operation device, set, as the score, a predetermined value indicating that the urgency level is high (Magzimof COL 8 ROW 66 - In an embodiment, 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).
Regarding claim 6, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses a mobility configured to receive remote support via a management device (Magzimof ABS - A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles).
Fernandez-Moral further teaches the mobility state information includes information on a distance that the mobility is capable of cruising; and the score includes a first score component that increases as the distance decreases (FERNANDEZ-MORAL - The management table is used to check the availability of the operators/drivers and rank them by relevance, which preferably includes ranking them by distance to the ego vehicle).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Fernandez-Moral because Fernandez-Moral discloses “This has the advantages that the system of the present disclosure can rely on existing infrastructure which saves costs and does not require to build an own network (Fernandez-Moral)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Fernandez-Moral discloses because it would enable the system of Magzimof to leverage existing network infrastructure and save on costs.
Regarding claim 7, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses the mobility state information includes information on a communication state of the mobility; and the score includes a second score component that increases as the communication state is worse (Magzimof COL 3 ROW 25 - the vehicle 102 may depend on a reliable network connection for streaming video or other sensor data to the remote support server 120 and for receiving control inputs or data used by the vehicle 102 to navigate in a safe and efficient manner. For example, to provide teleoperation support to a vehicle 102, it is important that the video stream is received at the remote support server 120 in real-time with a latency as low as possible. Therefore, the vehicle 102 may switch between different networks 140, may switch between different connections to different network devices 145 of the networks 140, and/or may maintain multiple simultaneous connections to optimize its connectivity).
Regarding claim 8, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses the one or more processors are configured to perform control of autonomous movement; the mobility state information includes information on an abnormality level of the one or more processors; and the score includes a third score component that increases as the abnormality level increases (Magzimof COL 3 ROW 52 - In an embodiment, the teleoperation support module 130 communicates with a vehicle 102 to provide teleoperation or other support services in instances when extra assistance is desired. For example, the vehicle 102 may request teleoperation assistance from the teleoperation support module 130 when one or more vehicle sensors fail, when an unknown problem occurs with the vehicle's autonomous driving software, when the vehicle 102 encounters a barrier or other hazardous road conditions, or when a passenger manually requests remote assistance. Furthermore, the teleoperation support module 130 may provide teleoperation support when the vehicle 102 enters a geographic region where it is not legally permitted to operate in a completely autonomous way).
Regarding claim 9, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses a mobility configured to receive remote support via a management device (Magzimof ABS - A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles).
Mertens further teaches the user state information includes information on a health condition of the user in the mobility; and the score includes a fourth score component that increases as the health condition is worse (Mertens COL 16 ROW 40 - In some examples, the credentials may be associated with situations, environments, vehicle types, and/or qualifications with which the remote operator 150 has experience. The credentials 314 may, for example, describe qualifications for interacting with different vehicle types, levels of seniority or experience, or other such qualifications (e.g., emergency medical experience {i.e. health of user – State of user}, technical knowledge, etc.) that may relate to what requests the remote operator is able to resolve. In such examples, the queue interface 308 may filter available remote operators for assigning requests based on the credentials and the availability of the respective remote operator 150(a) and/or remote operator 150(b)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Mertens because Mertens discloses “The techniques discussed herein may facilitate prioritizing and generating a queue of requests for assistance, assigning remote operators remote operator to service a request, and rapidly apprising the assigned remote operator of a situation at a respective driverless vehicle to obtain real-time guidance for the driverless vehicle that does not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle (Mertens COL 1 ROW 43)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Mertens discloses because it would improve the customer experience by removing delays.
Regarding claim 10, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses a mobility configured to receive remote support via a management device (Magzimof ABS - A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles).
Mertens further teaches the service state information includes information on a delay period until a start of the service for the user; and the score includes a fifth score component that increases as the delay period increases (Mertens COL 2 ROW 33 - In some examples, the remote operations requests may include time sensitive response windows wherein if a remote operator does not respond to a request within a period of time (e.g., a few seconds) then the request is returned to the queue and re-prioritized within the queue. Returned requests may receive additional priority within the queue due to the delay in processing the request).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Mertens because Mertens discloses “The techniques discussed herein may facilitate prioritizing and generating a queue of requests for assistance, assigning remote operators remote operator to service a request, and rapidly apprising the assigned remote operator of a situation at a respective driverless vehicle to obtain real-time guidance for the driverless vehicle that does not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle (Mertens COL 1 ROW 43)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Mertens discloses because it would improve the customer experience by removing delays.
Regarding claim 11, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses the service state information includes information on an amount charged to the user for the service; and the score includes a sixth score component that increases as the charged amount increases (Magzimof COL 5 ROW 37 - In a further embodiment, the ORSU 135 facilitates selection of an operator via a remote operator marketplace. Responsive to a remote support request, the ORSU 135 may return a database of remote operator identifiers, their respective reliability scores and service fees applicable to the request such that a vehicle controller may subsequently select a desired operator to service the remote support request based on an arbitrary cost/benefit estimation).
Regarding claim 12, Magzimof in view of Mertens further in view of Fernandez-Moral discloses the number of types of the mobilities is plural (Magzimof COL 9 ROW 51 - In an embodiment, 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); and the one or more processors are configured to calculate the score based on the mobility state information normalized based on a calculation rule shared among the mobilities (Magzimof COL 7 ROW 24 - In an embodiment, the score function S 205 may in part comprise a function for normalization into a desired range such as [−1; 1] or [0; 1] using a linear transformation, logistical transformation, or other kind of transformation).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Magzimof discloses a remote support system comprising: a plurality of mobilities; and a management device configured to manage remote support of the mobilities, wherein: each of the mobilities includes one or more first processors (Magzimof ABS - A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles); the management device includes one or more second processors; and the one or more second processors are configured to determine assignment order of the mobilities based on the score received from each of the mobilities (Magzimof COL 11 ROW 51 - FIG. 6 illustrates a first embodiment of a process for assigning an operator to a remote support request. A remote support request is received 601 from a vehicle 102. Responsive to the request, the operator assignment module 208 may retrieve 602 the currently available operators 202 using their operator score values 204 as applied to the vehicle requesting remote support. 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. The operator assignment module 208 then initiates 604 a remote support session and starts 605 a confirmation timer while awaiting operator confirmation or other positive action signal. Responsive to receiving 606 the confirmation signal, the operator assignment module 208 may enable 607 the teleoperator support module 130 to handle the remote support session for processing the request), and assign at least one of a remote supporter and a remote support terminal to each of the mobilities according to the determined assignment order, the remote support terminal being used by the remote supporter (Magzimof COL 13 ROW 59 - 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)).
Magzimof lacks determine whether there is an abnormality in a remote support function of the mobility; when there is an abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility, set a predetermined abnormal value as the score, and transmit the score to the management device via a communication device; when there is no abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility.
Mertens, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determine whether there is an abnormality in a remote support function of the mobility; when there is an abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility, set a predetermined abnormal value as the score, and transmit the score to the management device via a communication device; when there is no abnormality in the remote support function of the mobility (Mertens COL 20 ROW 34 - At operation 514, the process 500 includes determining whether a remote operator response is received within a threshold time. The remote operator may respond to a notification or request to accept the remote operation request and begin resolving the issue that resulted in the remote operations request. A lack of input during the threshold period of time or other unresponsiveness over a period of time may result in the remote operator being considered to not have responded to the request. In the event that the remote operator does not respond within the threshold, the process 500 proceeds to operation 516. In the event the remote operator responds, the process 500 proceeds to operation 520. At operation 516, the process 500 includes withdrawing the conveyed request in response to the remote operator being unresponsive to the first queued request. As described herein, the request may time out at the remote operator station after a predetermined period of time. In some examples, after a user has accepted the request, if no input is provided to the autonomous vehicle within a period of time then the request may be returned to the queue).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Mertens because Mertens discloses “The techniques discussed herein may facilitate prioritizing and generating a queue of requests for assistance, assigning remote operators remote operator to service a request, and rapidly apprising the assigned remote operator of a situation at a respective driverless vehicle to obtain real-time guidance for the driverless vehicle that does not cause undue or noticeable delay at the driverless vehicle (Mertens COL 1 ROW 43)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Mertens discloses because it would improve the customer experience by removing delays.
Magzimof further lacks the one or more first processors are configured to calculate a score indicating an urgency level of a request for the remote support, and transmit the calculated score to the management device.
Fernandez-Moral, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the one or more first processors are configured to calculate a score indicating an urgency level of a request for the remote support, and transmit the calculated score to the management device (FERNANDEZ-MORAL- The priority score may be determined, e.g., based on the type of the incident and the urgency of the assistance so that, e.g., if more than one support request from different vehicles should be received by a single recipient, the recipient can decide about which support request should have priority).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the vehicle teleoperator methodology/system of Magzimof by including the remote operator techniques of Fernandez-Moral because Fernandez-Moral discloses “This has the advantages that the system of the present disclosure can rely on existing infrastructure which saves costs and does not require to build an own network (Fernandez-Moral)”. Additionally, Magzimof further details “A system provides on-demand remote support services including teleoperation of vehicles (Magzimof ABS)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional remote operator techniques that Fernandez-Moral discloses because it would enable the system of Magzimof to leverage existing network infrastructure and save on costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to guidance for 35 USC § 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
The Applicant argues as to how the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application by addressing the abnormality detection aspect of the claimed invention. While this abnormality detection aspect might be an improvement to the business process of vehicle support, and as such, have practical applicability, this practical applicability is not synonymous with USPTO guidance. Specifically, the claimed invention needs have significant additional elements as to where the claimed invention is effectively integrated into those additional elements. As explained above, the identified additional elements of “Management device… Processors… Computer… Support terminal…” merely limit the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections on the previous Office Action, Applicant amended the independent claims to further limit the claims with respect to anomaly detection. In light of this amendment, Examiner agrees that the original reference did not teach this, however the amendment necessitated further search and consideration. As a result of this further search and consideration, previously cited prior art was found to teach these limitations and is now cited (Mertens as discussed above). As such, Applicant’s arguments (with respect to the independent claims and their respective dependent claims) are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights