DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to claims filed 15 January 2025.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 January 2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application(s) JAPAN 2024-068382 04/19/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). The claims recite an object and a system (with apparatuses), however, the claim(s) recite(s) management and transmission of service requests which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “transmit a support request to a first management device..., and when a response to the support request is not received from the first management device within a first period from transmission of the support request, transmit the support request to a second management device...different from the first management device,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A moving object that is to receive remote support, the moving object comprising: a control device; and a management device database in which information on a plurality of management devices is registered, wherein: each of the management devices has a function to assign a support resource necessary for the remote support; and the control device is configured to,” (or “A remote support system for remote support of a moving object, the remote support system comprising: one or more processors; and a plurality of management devices, wherein: each of the management devices includes a database that stores information on a support resource necessary for the remote support; and the one or more processors are configured to” in claim 4) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “the control device configured to” (or “one or more processors are configured to” in claim 4) language, “transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually dispatching or sending service requests to some sort of service provider which is a business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial interaction such as assigning customer service requests/customer queue processing.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a control device or one or more processors to perform the steps. The control device or one or more processors in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data query, storage and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “A moving object that is to receive remote support, the moving object comprising: a control device; and a management device database in which information on a plurality of management devices is registered, wherein: each of the management devices has a function to assign a support resource necessary for the remote support,” “A remote support system for remote support of a moving object, the remote support system comprising: one or more processors; and a plurality of management devices, wherein: each of the management devices includes a database that stores information on a support resource necessary for the remote support,” “a first management device,” “a second management device” are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using control device or one or more processors to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-3 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting how to transmit or route the service request, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1 and 4, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 5 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the database as to being shared which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1 and 4, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-5 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0027354) and further in view of Weslosky et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0149389).
As per claims 1 and 4, Goldman discloses moving object that is to receive remote support the moving object comprising: a control device; and a management device database in which information on a plurality of management devices is registered, and a remote support system emote support system for remote support of a moving object, the remote support system comprising: one or more processors; and a plurality of management devices (remote operators to provide assistance, Goldman ¶8; remote operation system, vehicle, ¶15; devices, ¶29; processors, memory, ¶35; able to control vehicle, ¶9), wherein:
each of the management devices has a function to assign a support resource necessary for the remote support (The remote operation system may receive the requests from the plurality of autonomous vehicles. As the requests are received, the requests may be ordered within a queue and conveyed to the remote operator(s) for processing. In some examples, the requests may be ordered within the queue based on a time at which the request was received. Additionally, or alternatively, the requests may be prioritized based on certain safety considerations, such as a vehicle operating speed (e.g., highway operation versus city street operation), occupancy status of the vehicle (occupied or vacant, number of occupants, etc.), length of ride, traffic volume, or other factors. Regardless, upon receipt of the requests, the remote operation system may select remote operators for responding to the requests, Goldman ¶15); and
the control device is configured to (able to control vehicle, microcontrollers, Goldman ¶9)
transmit a support request to a first management device registered in the [memory] (The remote operation system is associated with one or more remote operators that respond to or otherwise provide assistance to the autonomous vehicles. In some examples, the remote operators are able to set criteria associated with the assistance that they provide to the remote vehicles. For example, the remote operators may be associated with criteria including, for example, a vehicle type, location, type of assistance, mission-type, and so forth. As a non-limiting example, one operator may be associated with criteria related to responding to issues regarding the internal components (e.g., HVAC, brakes, communications systems, etc.), another may have criteria indicating skills with respect to situational awareness and planning, while another may be associated with criteria regarding passenger issues (e.g., medical emergencies and the like), Goldman ¶10; communicate queue request to remote operators, ¶68; store operator profiles, ¶54) (Examiner notes the operators ability to set criteria for which they can provide assistance as the ability to be registered in the database), and
when a response to the support request is not received from the first management device within a first period from transmission of the support request, transmit the support request to a second management device registered in the management device [memory] and different from the first management device (Upon determining a remote operator for a particular request, the remote operation system may send the request to the remote operator. In some examples, this includes displaying an indication of the request on a device operated by the remote operator. The remote operator may have a predetermined amount of time to respond to (e.g., accept) the request. If a response is received within the predetermined amount of time, the request is assigned to the remote operator. Alternatively, if the response is not received within the predetermined amount of time, the request may be sent one or more additional remote operators and/or placed back into a queue for reassignment. In some examples, a first of the remote operators to respond, and accept, the request may be assigned the request in order to provide assistance to the autonomous vehicle, Goldman ¶18; request queue can also include priority, geographic location, ¶25).
While Goldman discloses the ability to store remote operator profiles (Goldman ¶54), Goldman does not expressly disclose management device database.
However, Weslosky teaches management device database (database, of operators, Weslosky ¶49-¶50).
Both the Goldman and Weslosky references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with vehicle assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Weslosky’s operator database in Goldman’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an assistance management system that is able to provide remote assitance.
The motivation being that As the use of autonomous vehicles becomes more widespread, the ability to address unforeseen or unplanned issues is increasing in importance. For example, an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations outside of the operational domain of the autonomous vehicle, like unmapped construction zones; objects, potholes, stalled or disabled vehicles, or other hazards in a path of the autonomous vehicle; crossing guards; police directing traffic; emergency vehicles; honking vehicles; tailgating vehicles, etc. In addition, mechanical or other issues affecting an autonomous vehicle may cause the autonomous vehicle to unexpectedly engage in unsafe or otherwise inappropriate behavior, like juking, swerving, hard braking, striking or drifting towards curbs, not yielding, tailgating, etc. The ability to provide remote assistance to autonomous vehicles may enable the autonomous vehicles to effectively and efficiently address these issues, thereby allowing the autonomous vehicles to continue operating safely and effectively, with substantially minimized downtime (Weslosky ¶24).
As per claim 2, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Goldman further discloses wherein: the control device is configured to set priorities for each of the management devices when transmitting the support request; and the control device is configured to select the first management device and the second management device according to the priorities (requests can be prioritized, Goldman ¶15; request queue can also include priority, geographic location, ¶25).
As per claim 3, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Goldman further discloses wherein: the priorities are linked to distances between the moving object and each of the management devices; and the priority is higher as the distance is shorter (For example, job assignments may include considerations of route locations, route driving times, route distances, vehicle locations, vehicle ranges, vehicle charging statuses/needs, parking needs, vehicle storage capacities, capabilities, and/or configurations, relative job priorities, any associations between particular vehicles and particular job sites, etc., Goldman ¶47; queues for location, ¶67).
As per claim 5, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 4. Weslosky further teaches wherein the database is configured to be shared by the management devices (database, of operators, Weslosky ¶49-¶50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional art can be located on the PTO-892):
Kentley-Klay et al. (US Patent No. 9,958,864) Coordination Of Dispatching And Maintaining Fleet Of Autonomous Vehicles.
Weinstein-Raun (US Patent No. 10,732,625) Autonomous Vehicle Operations With Automated Assistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629