DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 14 May 2026.
Claims 1-5 have been amended.
Claims 6-9 have been added.
Claims 1-9 are pending and 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a certain method of organizing human activity, the Examiner notes that 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 is a function that have traditionally performed/provided for users. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., assigning customer service requests/customer service queue) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of generic computers or generic computing devices). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). Again, the claims recitation of the ““A moving object that is to receive remote support, the moving object comprising: processor communicable with a plurality of management devices; and a management device database in which information on the plurality of management devices is registered, wherein: each of the management devices has a function to assign a remote support terminal necessary for the remote support, the remote support terminal being configured to generate an instruction for the remote support” “A remote support system for remote support of a moving object, the remote support system comprising: one or more processors of the moving object; and a plurality of management devices communicable with the moving object, wherein: each of the management devices includes a database that stores information on a remote support terminal necessary for the remote support, each of the management devices is configured to assign one of the remote support terminals for the remote support, the one of the remote support terminals being configured to generate an instruction for the remote support; one of the management devices controls the moving object by transmitting the instruction for the remote support to the moving object” “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 2106.05(h). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
This argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates/amounts to significantly more/inventive concept; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and addressed below in the updated rejection, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-9 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 “moving object is controlled by the instruction for the remote support; transmit a support request to a first management device of the plurality of management devices..., and in an absence of 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 of the plurality of devices...the second management device being 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 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: processor communicable with a plurality of management devices; and a management device database in which information on the plurality of management devices is registered, wherein: each of the management devices has a function to assign a remote support terminal necessary for the remote support, the remote support terminal being configured to generate an instruction for the remote support” “A remote support system for remote support of a moving object, the remote support system comprising: one or more processors of the moving object; and a plurality of management devices communicable with the moving object, wherein: each of the management devices includes a database that stores information on a remote support terminal necessary for the remote support, each of the management devices is configured to assign one of the remote support terminals for the remote support, the one of the remote support terminals being configured to generate an instruction for the remote support; one of the management devices controls the moving object by transmitting the instruction for the remote support to the moving object” “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 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 and 9 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.
Claim 6-8 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the instructions and support requests 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.
Claims 1-9 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al. (US PG Pub. 2024/0036571) 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: processor communicable with a plurality of management devices; 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; processor executable instructions to vehicle, ¶14; remote operation system, vehicle, ¶15; devices, ¶29; processors, memory, ¶35; able to control vehicle, ¶9; In some examples, the remote operation system 112 may include multiple remote operation centers, with remote operation centers scattered around a geographic region where a fleet of vehicles operate. In such examples, the remote operators may be selected based on proximity to the vehicle requesting assistance. In some examples, the remote operation centers may have different bandwidths and/or availability to handle the requests. To reduce latency, in some examples, a nearest remote operation center and/or remote operator may be selected to process a request, ¶83), wherein:
each of the management devices has a function to assign a remote support terminal necessary for the remote support, the remote support terminal being configured to generate an instruction 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; control operation of various vehicle systems, ¶50; by remote operator, ¶87);
the moving object is controlled by the instructions for the remote support (system controllers, control vehicle, Goldman ¶43; control operation of various vehicle systems, ¶50; by remote operator, ¶87); and
the processor is configured to (able to control vehicle, microcontrollers, Goldman ¶9; processor executable instructions to vehicle, ¶14; remote operation system, vehicle, ¶15; devices, ¶29; processors, memory, ¶35)
transmit a support request to a first management device of the plurality of management devices 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
in an absence of 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 of the plurality of management devices registered in the management device [memory] the second management device being 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; At 420, the process 400 may include assigning the request to the first remote operator. As part of assigning the request to the remote operator, the first remote operator may be connected the vehicle to provide assistance and/or control the vehicle. Here, the status of the first remote operator may be updated to indicate that the first remote operator is providing assistance, and thus, is occupied. This may be used when assigning additional requests, for example, knowing that the first remote operator is busy and unable to accept further requests, second operator, ¶87-¶93).
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 processor is configured to set priorities for each of the plurality of management devices when transmitting the support request; and the processor 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 plurality of management devices; and the priority of a corresponding management device among the plurality of management devices is higher as the distance to the corresponding management device 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; threshold distance, ¶9).
As per claim 5, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 4. Weslosky further teaches wherein the database of each of the management devices is configured to be shared by the management devices (database, of operators, Weslosky ¶49-¶50).
As per claim 6, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Goldman further discloses wherein the instruction includes travel instructions for the moving object (In some examples, since the vehicle 102 may be configured to control all functions from start to route completion, including all parking functions, the vehicle 102 may not include a driver and/or implements for controlling the vehicle 102 such as a steering wheel, etc. In some examples, the techniques described herein may be incorporated into any ground-borne, airborne, or waterborne vehicle (or autonomous vehicle), including those ranging from vehicles that need to be manually controlled by a driver at all times, to those that are partially or fully autonomously controlled. In some examples, the vehicle 102 may represent an autonomous vehicle that is part of a fleet of autonomous vehicles, Goldman ¶22).
As per claim 7, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Goldman further discloses wherein the support request includes a vehicle ID of the moving object, position information of the moving object, and a type of the remote support that is required (The autonomous vehicle may be in communication with a remote operation system that receives the information associated with the status of the autonomous vehicle. In some examples, the autonomous vehicles are configured to automatically transmit the information according to predetermined schedules (e.g., every second, every minute, etc.) and/or upon the occurrence of certain events (e.g., upon request of a fleet monitoring service, upon the vehicle traveling a threshold distance, upon detection of an object, upon an inability to traverse a region, a level of uncertainty falling to or below a threshold level, passenger issues, etc.). The information informs the remote operation system of the state of the autonomous vehicles, may indicate any number of indicators including, but not limited to, whether the autonomous vehicle is in need of assistance, a type of assistance sought, provides information regarding the vehicle's surroundings, and so forth. As noted above, such information sent by the autonomous vehicle may include a current state of vehicle, such as speed, orientation (or heading), location, whether a remote operator is communicating with and/or controlling the autonomous vehicle, a health status of components of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., brakes, microcontrollers, HVAC controllers, etc.), mission type (e.g., recharging, training, hauling passengers, picking up passengers, etc.), and so forth. The remote operation system may communicate with and monitor the status of any number of autonomous vehicles within a fleet. 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 ¶9-¶10; current state, passengers, ¶23; location, position, identification of vehicle, make, model, size, ¶39).
As per claim 8, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Goldman further discloses wherein the first management device does not respond within the first period due to failure or maintenance of the first management (operational status, such as recharging batteries, Goldman ¶23).
As per claim 9, Goldman and Weslosky disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Goldman further discloses wherein the management devices are provided outside the moving object (processor executable instructions to vehicle, Goldman ¶14; In some examples, the remote operation system 112 may include multiple remote operation centers, with remote operation centers scattered around a geographic region where a fleet of vehicles operate. In such examples, the remote operators may be selected based on proximity to the vehicle requesting assistance. In some examples, the remote operation centers may have different bandwidths and/or availability to handle the requests. To reduce latency, in some examples, a nearest remote operation center and/or remote operator may be selected to process a request, ¶83).
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 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
Prosecution Insights