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 communication is in response to Application 19/049,402 filed on 02/10/2025. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and examined below.
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. JP2024063642, filed on 04/10/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
Step 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
Step 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A remote operator terminal for a remote operator to perform remote assistance for a vehicle, the remote operator terminal comprising:
a display device [generic computer component]; and
processing circuitry configured to generate a remote assistance screen for the remote operator to perform the remote assistance in response to one or more remote assistance requests assigned to the remote operator [generic computer component],and
to display the remote assistance screen on the display device [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)]; and
wherein the remote assistance screen includes one or more monitoring images showing an assistance situation of a target vehicle for each of the one or more remote assistance requests [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)], and
the processing circuitry is further configured to [generic computer component]:
set a display priority for each of the one or more remote assistance requests [mental process/step];
select, as a preferential monitoring image, a monitoring image corresponding to a remote assistance request having a highest display priority among the one or more monitoring images [mental process/step]; and
display the one or more monitoring images on the remote assistance screen [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)] so that the preferential monitoring image has higher noticeability than other monitoring images have [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites a remote terminal operator including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of set a display priority for each of the one or more remote assistance requests; select, as a preferential monitoring image, a monitoring image corresponding to a remote assistance request having a highest display priority among the one or more monitoring images; and so that the preferential monitoring image has higher noticeability than other monitoring images have. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images” That is, other than reciting “display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images” That is, other than reciting “display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images”, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of sensor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images. In particular, the “display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images” limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Twp, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the display device, processing circuitry, remote assistance screen and monitoring images were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that “The processing circuitry 111 may be configured as, for example, a general-purpose processor, a special-purpose processor, a central processing unit (CPU)” (See ¶22 of applicant’s specification), and further does not provide any indication that the display device, remote assistance screen and monitoring images are anything other than conventional computer element(s) (See ¶24-30 of applicant’s specification). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the claim is ineligible.-
The independent system claim 5 recites similar limitations performed by the remote operator terminal of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamane et al., US 20230137980A1, hereinafter referred to as Yamane.
Regarding claim 1, Yamane discloses a remote operator terminal for a remote operator to perform remote assistance for a vehicle, the remote operator terminal (A remote monitoring and control apparatus, a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that are capable of improving the monitoring efficiency of a mobile body when the mobile body is remotely monitored and controlled – See at least ¶8) comprising:
a display device (Display screen – See at least ¶11); and
processing circuitry configured to generate a remote assistance screen for the remote operator to perform the remote assistance in response to one or more remote assistance requests assigned to the remote operator, and to display the remote assistance screen on the display device (A system according to the present disclosure includes an information acquisition device, a determination device, and a remote monitoring and control apparatus – See at least ¶13. The remote control screen displays video image data of a remotely controlled vehicle selected from among a plurality of vehicles. The remote control screen is a screen for a person (i.e. remote operator) who performs monitoring to remotely control a vehicle. The display means displays at least one of the monitor screen and the remote control screen. The remote control screen may be referred to as a remote driving screen or a remote operation screen. Further, the display means may display both the monitor screen and the remote control screen – See at least ¶58. When it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among the plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle. The control means displays video image data of the predetermined vehicle on the remote control screen – See at least ¶59), wherein
the remote assistance screen includes one or more monitoring images showing an assistance situation of a target vehicle for each of the one or more remote assistance requests (The display means can display a monitor screen and a remote control screen. The monitor screen displays video image data captured by the camera for each of a plurality of vehicles. The monitor screen is a screen for a person who performs monitoring to monitor vehicles. That is, the person who performs monitoring monitors the vehicles by using the monitor screen – See at least ¶56. If it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among a plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the monitoring center selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle – See at least ¶66), and
the processing circuitry is further configured to (A Central Processing Unit (CPU) to execute a computer program – See at least ¶92):
set a display priority for each of the one or more remote assistance requests (Operations performed when the determination device determines that a predetermined vehicle is not able to perform autonomous driving have been described, and operations similar to these operations may be performed when it is highly unlikely that the predetermined vehicle will be able to perform autonomous driving. That is, the control means may display video image data of a vehicle which it is highly unlikely will be able to perform autonomous driving on the remote control screen in an emphasized manner (i.e. priority) – See at least ¶75);
select, as a preferential monitoring image, a monitoring image corresponding to a remote assistance request having a highest display priority among the one or more monitoring images (When it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among the plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle. The control means displays video image data of the predetermined vehicle on the remote control screen (i.e. a preferential monitoring image). At this time, the remote control screen is displayed in a more emphasized manner than that of the monitor screen (i.e. highest display priority among the one or more monitoring images). The control means may be referred to as display changing means – See at least ¶59); and
display the one or more monitoring images on the remote assistance screen so that the preferential monitoring image has higher noticeability than other monitoring images have (Further, when the autonomous driving determination means determines that a predetermined vehicle among a plurality of vehicles to be monitored is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means, as indicated by an arrow Y3 in FIG. 5 , may display video image data of the predetermined vehicle by setting a part of the display area of the display means as the remote control screen and setting a part of the display area of the display means other than the former part as the monitor screen. At this time, the control means makes the remote control screen larger (i.e. higher noticeability) than the monitor screen – See at least ¶90).
Regarding claim 2, Yamane discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set the noticeability of the preferential monitoring image to be higher than those of the other monitoring images by modifying at least one of size, arrangement, and outer frame appearance of each of the one or more monitoring images (wherein the control means makes a size of the remote control screen larger than a size of the monitor screen, thereby displaying the remote control screen in a more emphasized manner than that of the monitor screen – See at least ¶104).
Regarding claim 5, Yamane discloses a remote assistance system for remote assistance for a vehicle, the remote assistance system (A remote monitoring and control apparatus, a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that are capable of improving the monitoring efficiency of a mobile body when the mobile body is remotely monitored and controlled – See at least ¶8) comprising:
a remote operator terminal for a remote operator to perform the remote assistance (a remote monitoring and control apparatus, a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, and in particular, to a remote monitoring and control apparatus, a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that are capable of improving the monitoring efficiency of a mobile body when the mobile body is remotely monitored and controlled – See at least ¶1); and
processing circuitry configured to generate a remote assistance screen for the remote operator to perform the remote assistance in response to one or more remote assistance requests assigned to the remote operator, and to display the remote assistance screen on the remote operator terminal (A system according to the present disclosure includes an information acquisition device, a determination device, and a remote monitoring and control apparatus – See at least ¶13. The remote control screen displays video image data of a remotely controlled vehicle selected from among a plurality of vehicles. The remote control screen is a screen for a person (i.e. remote operator) who performs monitoring to remotely control a vehicle. The display means displays at least one of the monitor screen and the remote control screen. The remote control screen may be referred to as a remote driving screen or a remote operation screen. Further, the display means may display both the monitor screen and the remote control screen – See at least ¶58. When it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among the plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle. The control means displays video image data of the predetermined vehicle on the remote control screen – See at least ¶59), wherein
the remote assistance screen includes one or more monitoring images showing an assistance situation of a target vehicle for each of the one or more remote assistance requests (The display means can display a monitor screen and a remote control screen. The monitor screen displays video image data captured by the camera for each of a plurality of vehicles. The monitor screen is a screen for a person who performs monitoring to monitor vehicles. That is, the person who performs monitoring monitors the vehicles by using the monitor screen – See at least ¶56. If it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among a plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the monitoring center selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle – See at least ¶66), and
the processing circuitry is configured to (A Central Processing Unit (CPU) to execute a computer program – See at least ¶92):
set a display priority for each of the one or more remote assistance requests (Operations performed when the determination device determines that a predetermined vehicle is not able to perform autonomous driving have been described, and operations similar to these operations may be performed when it is highly unlikely that the predetermined vehicle will be able to perform autonomous driving. That is, the control means may display video image data of a vehicle which it is highly unlikely will be able to perform autonomous driving on the remote control screen in an emphasized manner (i.e. priority) – See at least ¶75);
select, as a preferential monitoring image, a monitoring image corresponding to a remote assistance request having a highest display priority among the one or more monitoring images (When it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among the plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle. The control means displays video image data of the predetermined vehicle on the remote control screen (i.e. a preferential monitoring image). At this time, the remote control screen is displayed in a more emphasized manner than that of the monitor screen (i.e. highest display priority among the one or more monitoring images). The control means may be referred to as display changing means – See at least ¶59); and
display the one or more monitoring images on the remote assistance screen so that the preferential monitoring image has higher noticeability than other monitoring images have (Further, when the autonomous driving determination means determines that a predetermined vehicle among a plurality of vehicles to be monitored is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means, as indicated by an arrow Y3 in FIG. 5 , may display video image data of the predetermined vehicle by setting a part of the display area of the display means as the remote control screen and setting a part of the display area of the display means other than the former part as the monitor screen. At this time, the control means makes the remote control screen larger (i.e. higher noticeability) than the monitor screen – See at least ¶90).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al., US 20230137980A1, in view of Ghorbanian-Matloob et al., US 20220128989 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yamane and Matloob, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Yamane discloses wherein a preferential request, included in the one or more remote assistance requests, is a remote assistance request corresponding to the preferential monitoring image (When it is determined that a predetermined vehicle among the plurality of vehicles is not able to perform autonomous driving, the control means selects the predetermined vehicle as a remotely controlled vehicle. The control means displays video image data of the predetermined vehicle on the remote control screen. At this time, the remote control screen is displayed in a more emphasized manner than that of the monitor screen. The control means may be referred to as display changing means – See at least ¶59).
Yamane fails to disclose the remote assistance screen includes an operation icon to accept a remote assistance operation by the remote operator in response to the preferential request.
However, Matloob teaches the remote assistance screen includes an operation icon to accept a remote assistance operation by the remote operator in response to the preferential request (The remote action selection area can include one or more potential remote assistance options. These represent potential instructions the remote operator can select and cause to be implemented by the autonomous vehicle. For example, the remote operator can select (e.g., by clicking) a particular option and, in response, the remote assistance computing system can transmit instructions to the autonomous vehicle – See at least ¶171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamane and include the feature of the remote assistance screen includes an operation icon to accept a remote assistance operation by the remote operator in response to the preferential request, as taught by Matloob, to provide remote assistance for autonomous vehicles (See at least 2 of Matloob).
The combination of Yamane and Matloob fail to disclose whereas the remote assistance screen does not include an operation icon to accept a remote assistance operation by the remote operator for other remote assistance requests.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamane and Matloob and include the feature of whereas the remote assistance screen does not include an operation icon to accept a remote assistance operation by the remote operator for other remote assistance requests, because Matloob teaches presenting a user-selectable interface control for accepting and initiating a remote assistance operation in response to a remote assistance request and further because Yamane already priorities a single remote assistance request by selecting a predetermined vehicle and displaying its corresponding remote control screen in a more emphasized manner than the remaining monitored vehicles (See at least ¶58-60 and 66-73 of Yamane), providing the acceptance control only for currently active, prioritized request while omitting such controls for the remaining non-active requests would have been a predictable implementation that streamlines the operator interface, reduces operator confusion, and prevents inadvertent activation of non-selected remote assistance requests.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al., US 20230137980A1, in view of Clement et al., US 20210344876 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yamane and Clement, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Yamane fails to disclose wherein a switching operation is a predetermined operation by the remote operator on any of the one or more monitoring images on the remote assistance screen other than the preferential monitoring image, and the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to the switching operation, switch the preferential monitoring image to the one subjected to the switching operation.
However, Clement teaches wherein a switching operation is a predetermined operation by the remote operator on any of the one or more monitoring images on the remote assistance screen other than the preferential monitoring image, and the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to the switching operation, switch the preferential monitoring image to the one subjected to the switching operation (The control station generates a teleoperator user interface with a plurality of user interface segments for concurrent display of a plurality of distinct video tiles from the tiled video feed data. In response to teleoperator input, the control station modifies one or more user interface segments displaying a respective video tile while the teleoperator user interface is displayed. Such modification may be a modification to the size and/or display resolution of the user interface segment. In other embodiments, such modification may be switching between display of different video tiles in the user interface segment – See at least ¶3. A human teleoperator may manipulate a peripheral device of the control station to generate input requesting to modify the video tile displayed in the first user interface segment. Based on the input, the first user interface segment for front facing camera views may display a different video tile sourced from a second front-facing camera, such as a front-facing camera mounted on top of the vehicle's main cabin to provide an upper field of vision – See at least ¶4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamane and include the feature of wherein a switching operation is a predetermined operation by the remote operator on any of the one or more monitoring images on the remote assistance screen other than the preferential monitoring image, and the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to the switching operation, switch the preferential monitoring image to the one subjected to the switching operation, as taught by Clement, to improve operator flexibility and efficiency during remote assistance operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fairfield et al., US 20170277181A1 discloses methods and apparatuses that enable an autonomous vehicle to request assistance from a remote operator in certain predetermined situations. During the operation of an autonomous vehicle, the vehicle may identify a situation from a set of predetermined situations for which it will request assistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights