DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Office Action Response dated July 1, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0030446, to Lei, in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN112818497, to Yang. For the purpose of examination a machine translation of CN112818497 is utilized and attached herewith.
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 9 and 17, Lei discloses a remote driving control method (e.g. see Abstract, wherein a remote driving method is provided), comprising: obtaining vehicle status data of a vehicle (e.g. see paras 0008 and 0087-0097, wherein working conditions of a vehicle are obtained) and environmental data of a road condition of the vehicle (e.g. see paras 0014, 0022, 0035, wherein map and location data of a vehicle is obtained); determining first data for making driving decisions (e.g. see para 0008, wherein the working conditions of the vehicle are combined and transmitted (i.e. first data), for determining a dynamic safety region, which are ultimately used for determining a target driving policy (e.g. see Figs. 3-5)) and second data for constructing a simulated environment corresponding to the road condition, based on the vehicle status data and the environmental data (e.g. see Fig. 2, and paras 0009, 0013 and 0098-0104, wherein the dynamic safety region of the vehicle is determined (i.e. simulated environment), which is based upon the working condition of the vehicle, as well as the map and location data of the vehicle); transmitting the first data to a remote driving server (e.g. see Fig. 8, wherein at least the location service entity and map information entity is transmits data to a remote driving entity); …receiving a first vehicle control instruction from the remote driving server; and transmitting the first vehicle control instruction to the vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 8, step 812, wherein the target driving policy, which is based upon the working condition and dynamic safety region, is transmitted to the vehicle, via a suitable wireless transmitting means (e.g. see Fig. 1)), wherein the first vehicle control instruction is generated based on the first data and driving assistance information…(e.g. see above, wherein the target driving policy working conditions and driving assist information of the dynamic safety region), and wherein the driving assistance information is generated based on the constructed simulated environment (e.g. see above, wherein the target driving policy instructions sent to and used by the vehicle are based upon the dynamic safety region (e.g. simulated environment))…
With respect to transmitting the second data to a target server, the target server and the remote driving server being connected via a network and wherein the first vehicle control instruction is generated based on the first data and driving assistance information transmitted from the target server, while Lei illustrates and discusses the remote driving entity generating the working conditions, dynamic region and target driving policy, Lei also specifically indicates that each entity (i.e. remote driving entity) may comprise a plurality of servers, which would require connection through some sort of network (e.g. see Fig. 8 and para 0076).
Lei fails to disclose wherein the target server performs scene rendering processing on the second data to construct the simulated environment corresponding to the road condition of the vehicle. However, Yang teaches a server that displays simulated road conditions based upon captured data (e.g. see p. 7, lines 15-35). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Lei to include rendering a simulated environment of a road condition for the purpose of providing additional situation awareness to the remote system.
As per claim 2, and similarly with respect to claims 10 and 18, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively, and further discloses wherein the obtaining the vehicle status data comprises at least one of: receiving the vehicle status data and the environmental data from a vehicle-mounted device disposed on the vehicle (e.g. see at least Fig. 8 and para 0087-0094 and 0167, wherein location information, which includes map information, of the vehicle is based upon GPS of the vehicle); receiving the vehicle status data and the environmental data from a mobile terminal inside the vehicle; or receiving the vehicle status data and the environmental data from a road side unit (RSU) of a road section on which the vehicle is traveling.
As per claim 3, and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 19, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively, and further discloses wherein the vehicle status data of the vehicle comprises a network status of the vehicle, and wherein the obtaining the vehicle status data comprises at least one of: receiving the network status from the vehicle; or detecting the network status of the vehicle (e.g. see para 0087-0094).
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 20, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively, and further discloses wherein the determining the first data and the second data comprises selecting structured data and unstructured data from the vehicle status data and the environmental data, wherein the determining the first data further comprises determining the unstructured data as the first data, and wherein the determining the second data further comprises: determining the structured data as the second data (e.g. the Office notes that the unstructured data would be the location and map data and the structured data would be the simulated environmental data); or determining the structured data and the unstructured data as the second data.
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 1 and 9, respectively, and further discloses wherein the first data comprises a traveling status (e.g. see location and map data above) and a network status of the vehicle (e.g. see para 0087-0094), and wherein the remote control driving method further comprises: generating a second vehicle control instruction for the vehicle according to at least one of the traveling status and the network status; and transmitting the second vehicle control instruction to the vehicle (e.g. the Office notes that additional vehicle control instruction would be generated to each region analyzed).
As per claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 5 and 13, respectively, and further discloses wherein the driving assistance information comprises at least one of: real-time video information of the simulated environment, prediction information for the road condition, driving advice information, or network prediction information (e.g. the dynamic safety region would provide prediction information of a road condition).
As per claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 5 and 13, respectively, and further discloses wherein the determining the first data and the second data comprises: converting partial data of the vehicle status data and the environmental data into structured data (e.g. the Office notes that the data would have to be structured for transmission and for generating the dynamic safety region), and determining the first data and the second data from the vehicle status data and the environmental data other than the partial data converted to the structured data (e.g. notwithstanding clarity issues, as described herein, the Office notes that the first and second data are based upon the working data (i.e. vehicle status) and dynamic safety region (i.e. simulated environment)).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei, in view of Yang, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,401, to He et al. (hereinafter He).
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Lei, as modified by Yang, teaches the features of claims 5 and 13, respectively, but fails to teach wherein the second vehicle control instruction comprises at least one of: a first control instruction for switching a remote driving mode of the vehicle based on the traveling status and the network status not corresponding to a current remote driving mode of the vehicle; a second control instruction for reducing a data transmission bit rate of the vehicle based on the network status of the vehicle indicating a current network communication quality of the vehicle is lower than a set threshold; or a third control instruction based on the traveling status of the vehicle indicating a driving risk on a road section on which the vehicle is traveling for at least one of: reducing a traveling speed of the vehicle; or parking in a specified region, and wherein the remote driving mode comprises a machine remote control (MRC) mode or a human remote control (HRC) mode.
However, He discloses a first control instruction for switching a remote driving mode of the vehicle based on the traveling status and the network status not corresponding to a current remote driving mode of the vehicle (e.g. see col. 9, lines 10-27, wherein during loss of connection between a remote controller and the vehicle, or during abnormal connection, a backup remote control device is utilized, the modification being performed during flight (i.e. traveling status)). With respect to wherein the remote driving mode comprises a machine remote control (MRC) mode or a human remote control (HRC) mode, the Office notes that remote control is either performed by a machine or human. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Lei to include a backup control system for remote operation for the purpose of eliminating or reducing catastrophic event when a driver is unable to take control of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights