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 .
Claims 1-5 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND OPERATING METHOD OF INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20200409356 A1), in view of Levinson (US 20170123428 A1), and further in view of Schlacks (US 20200356088 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ide discloses an information processing apparatus [0021] “An operation management center 12 includes a computer having a communicating function, and manages operation of the vehicles 10.” comprising:
a communication interface [0022] “The operation management center 12 is connected to a plurality of communication base stations 14, and the plurality of communication base stations 14 are connected to the plurality of vehicles 10 via wireless communication.”;
a memory configured to store information on an operation plan for each of a plurality of vehicles [0021] “an operation plan of a plurality of vehicles 10 that includes putting into service (going into the determined rout) and removing from service (going out from the determined rout) of the vehicles 10 is prepared and stored.” (i.e., stored operation-plan information for each of a plurality of vehicles), and [0031] “in the operation management center 12, the operation plan drafted using the operation management room terminal 16 or the like in advance is stored” (i.e., the operation-management-center memory stores the fleet operation plan),
the operation plan including an operation route a portion or whole of which is included in one or more areas [0020] “a plurality of automatic driving vehicles (vehicles) 10 operate along a predetermined travel route” and “makes rounds of certain areas while stopping at stopping places such as bus stops” (i.e., the vehicle operation plan includes a route that extends through one or more geographic areas), and [0029] “a travel route 50 is a circuit route, and three vehicles 10 operate via an almost equal distances apart” (i.e., multiple vehicles operate along the planned route); and
a controller configured to: communicate using the communication interface [0021] “An operation management center 12 includes a computer having a communicating function, and manages operation of the vehicles 10” (i.e., the operation-management-center computer functions as a controller configured to communicate), and [0022] “the vehicle 10 can travel in accordance with the command from the operation management center 12 while exchanging information with the operation management center 12 through the communication” (i.e., the controller exchanges information and commands with the vehicles);
transmit, to a terminal apparatus, information indicating operation plans for the plurality of vehicles [0031] “the operation plan drafted using the operation management room terminal 16 or the like in advance is stored” (i.e., the operation management room terminal is used to prepare the operation plan), and [0023] “the operation management room terminal 16 provides a system operator with information by use of a display or the like” (i.e., information from the operation management center is provided to the operator through the terminal).and …; and
upon receiving, from the terminal apparatus, an instruction to …, transmit an instruction … to a first vehicle [0023] “the operation management room terminal 16 accepts inputs of the necessary command or data in the operation management center 12” (i.e., the operation management center receives an operator command from the terminal), [0032] “the vehicle 10 is automatically put in service or removed from the service in accordance with the instruction from the operation management center 12” (i.e., the center transmits vehicle-operation instructions).
Ide does not expressly disclose “a first area for which a predetermined reason has occurred; transmitting information identifying that affected first area to the terminal apparatus together with operation-plan information; receiving from the terminal apparatus an instruction specifically to cease operating in the first area; or selecting the first vehicle for cessation because a portion or the whole of that vehicle’s operation route is included in the first area.”
However, Levinson teaches a first area for which a predetermined reason has occurred [0058] “An event may be a condition or situation affecting operation, or potentially affecting operation, of an autonomous vehicle” and “An event may include weather-related conditions” or “a reduction or loss of communication” (i.e., a predetermined event or reason affecting vehicle operation), and [0099] “a fleet of autonomous vehicles 1830 transiting within a road network 1850 that coincides with a communication outage at an area identified as ‘reduced communication region’ 1880” (i.e., an identified first geographic area for which the predetermined reason of degraded or lost communication has occurred).
transmit, to a terminal apparatus, information indicating … a first area for which a predetermined reason has occurred [0095] “Message data may be received at a teleoperator computing device for managing a fleet of autonomous vehicles. The message data may indicate event attributes associated with a non-normative state of operation in the context of a planned path for an autonomous vehicle” (i.e., the teleoperator terminal receives event information in relation to a planned vehicle route), and “representations of the set of recommended courses of actions may be presented visually on a display of a teleoperator computing device” (i.e., the event and planned-path information are displayed at the terminal). Levinson also discloses receiving operator input responsive to the affected area [0095] “data signals representing a selection (e.g., by teleoperator) of a recommended course of action may be detected” (i.e., the system receives an operator instruction or selection from the terminal in response to the displayed event and route information). Levinson further discloses identifying vehicles whose routes are associated with the first area wherein a portion or whole of an operation route for which is included in the first area [0101] “implement peer-to-peer communications among a portion of the pool of autonomous vehicles associated with the portion of the geographic region” and “provide to the autonomous vehicles an event policy that describes a route to egress the portion of the geographic region during an event” (i.e., identifying and controlling vehicles associated with the affected geographic area), and “recalculate paths so as to avoid the geographic portion” (i.e., modifying vehicle operation based on whether a route passes through the affected area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ide’s centralized vehicle-operation-management system to include Levinson’s event-area monitoring and route-association functionality. Applying Levinson’s event-area and planned-path analysis to Ide’s stored fleet operation plans would predictably enable the operation management center to identify the vehicles whose planned routes pass through an affected region and to present the operation plans and the affected region to Ide’s system operator.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination to prevent scheduled vehicles from entering an affected area Levinson [0101] “provide to the autonomous vehicles an event policy that describes a route to egress the portion of the geographic region during an event” and “recalculate paths so as to avoid the geographic portion”.
Ide and Levinson do not expressly disclose that to transmit an instruction to “cease operating to a vehicle”
However, Schlacks teaches to transmit an instruction to cease operating to a vehicle Schlacks [0125] “Any user may trigger an emergency stop of one or more vehicles operating in autonomous mode by selecting the E-Stop button provided on the display of the user's computing device” (i.e., receiving from a terminal apparatus an operator instruction to cease operation), “the MAP application transmits an emergency stop message (Emergency Stop Enable) to the emergency cloud service” (i.e., transmitting the terminal-generated cease instruction to a centralized processing system), and “The emergency cloud service then broadcasts an emergency stop message (Emergency Stop Broadcast) to the vehicle controller process of robotics processing node 110” (i.e., transmitting the cease-operation instruction to the vehicle). [0126] “it causes the vehicle to enter a designated safe state, typically engine off and brake engaged” (i.e., the transmitted instruction causes the vehicle to cease operating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Schlacks’s terminal-originated emergency-stop process into the combined Ide-Levinson fleet-management system. Schlacks teaches a known mechanism for receiving an emergency-stop selection from a computing-device interface and relaying the stop instruction through a centralized service to the selected vehicle controller.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Schlacks’s emergency-stop signaling into Ide and Levinson to provide a rapid and reliable mechanism for stopping a vehicle whose scheduled route passes through an unsafe or non-operable area Schlacks [0005] “Some types of construction vehicles may be remotely operated in order to improve workplace safety at hazardous work sites” (i.e., remote vehicle control, including remote stopping, improves safety in hazardous areas).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Ide, Levinson, and Schlacks teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ide discloses wherein the controller is configured to transmit an instruction to execute operating to a second vehicle [0031] “putting a predetermined number of vehicles 10 into service on the travel route 50 one by one to start the operation is scheduled” and “removing the vehicle 10 from the service and putting a vehicle 10 on standby into the service is scheduled” (i.e., transmit an instruction to execute operating to a second vehicle or more). [0032] “the vehicle 10 is automatically put in service or removed from the service in accordance with the instruction from the operation management center 12” (i.e., the controller transmits an instruction causing a selected vehicle to execute operation),
Ide does not expressly disclose that the operation route of the second vehicle is not included in the first area.
However, Levinson teaches equivalent teachings [0101] “implement peer-to-peer communications among a portion of the pool of autonomous vehicles associated with the portion of the geographic region” (i.e., only a portion of the fleet is associated with the affected area), and “recalculate paths so as to avoid the geographic portion” (i.e., vehicle operation is differentiated based on whether the vehicle route encounters the affected area).
Furthermore, Schlacks teaches that [0131] “The MAP application enables a user to select a particular vehicle for control and operation” and “The computing device may issue commands to multiple vehicles” (i.e., the centralized controller independently controls selected vehicles), and [0134] “For each vehicle, the user may select a task and the system will plan the path for each of the multiple vehicles” (i.e., each vehicle may receive a separate operating task and path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Ide’s known capability of putting a selected vehicle into service for a second vehicle identified outside Levinson’s affected geographic subset. Levinson teaches applying the event response to the portion of the vehicle pool associated with the affected geographic region. A vehicle whose route is not included in that region would not be part of the affected subset. Ide teaches placing another scheduled or standby vehicle into service, and Schlacks teaches individually selecting, assigning, and controlling multiple vehicles.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to continue operating vehicles whose routes do not enter the affected area to preserve transportation or work-site service while limiting the interruption to affected vehicles [0134] “For each vehicle, the user may select a task and the system will plan the path for each of the multiple vehicles” (i.e., separate vehicles may be assigned and operated according to their individual paths). The combination would avoid unnecessarily stopping the entire fleet because of a geographically limited event.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Ide, Levinson, and Schlacks teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ide discloses wherein … multiple vehicles corresponding to a single operation route [0029] “a travel route 50 is a circuit route, and three vehicles 10 operate via an almost equal distances apart” (i.e., three vehicles correspond to and operate on the same circuit route). [0032] “each of the vehicles 10 provides the operation management center 12 with the information on the vehicle location as needed” and “the vehicle 10 is automatically put in service or removed from the service in accordance with the instruction from the operation management center 12” (i.e., the center separately controls the operation of the multiple vehicles assigned to the route).
Ide and Levinson do not appear to teach “to transmit the instruction to cease operating to multiple vehicles”
However, Schlacks teaches equivalent teachings wherein transmitting a cease instruction to multiple vehicles [0125] “Any user may trigger an emergency stop of one or more vehicles operating in autonomous mode,” and [0133] “an emergency stop service 1514 that enables a user to implement an emergency stop for one or all of vehicles 1518a-1518n” (i.e., the cease-operation instruction may be transmitted to multiple vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to transmit the cease instruction to each vehicle assigned to the same operation route when that route passes through the affected area.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to stop all vehicles assigned to the affected route to ensure consistent application of the area-based cessation decision and prevent each vehicle from encountering the same hazard [0133] “an emergency stop service 1514 that enables a user to implement an emergency stop for one or all of vehicles” (i.e., multiple vehicles may be stopped when required by the operating condition).
Regarding Claim 5, The claim recites an operating method of an information processing apparatus of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20200409356 A1), in view of Levinson (US 20170123428 A1), and further in view of Schlacks (US 20200356088 A1), and further in view of Chambers (US 20200133260 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Ide, Levinson, and Schlacks teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
Ide discloses wherein the controller is configured to transmit … an instruction to start operating to the … second vehicle … before the operation start time included in the operation plan [0021] “This operation plan includes an operation schedule indicating when and where the respective vehicles 10 travel” and “estimated (scheduled) time to arrive at a predetermined location” (i.e., the operation plan includes scheduled operation times for each vehicle). [0041] “When shifting to the automatic mode standby state, the vehicle determines whether a travel start instruction from the operation management center 12 is received” and “the center transmits the travel start instruction at an appropriate time. The travel start instruction may include travel start time” (i.e., the start instruction is transmitted while the vehicle remains in a pre-start standby state and may identify the scheduled start time). [0043] “the vehicle enters a state of waiting for an operator’s start manipulation while keeping the vehicle 10 in a stopped state” (i.e., the instruction is received before physical operation begins). [0044] “in a case where there is the start manipulation, a stop holding state is canceled and starting is performed” (i.e., the start instruction precedes the actual operation start). [0042] “in a case where abnormality occurs at this stage and the automatic travel is impossible, putting the vehicle 10 into service is discontinued and error processing is performed” (i.e., a scheduled vehicle is prevented from beginning operation when a pre-start abnormality is identified).
The combination of Ide, Levinson, and Schlacks do not expressly disclose “transmitting the area specific cease instruction to the first vehicle before the operation start time included in the first vehicle’s operation plan.”
However, Chambers teaches equivalent teachings wherein transmitting the area specific cease instruction to the first vehicle before the operation start time included in the first vehicle’s operation plan [0099] “The sensor station 306 is primarily used to gather local weather data for the distribution center 101’s location” and “if the sensor station 306 detects an approaching storm, the mission manager 305 may display a notification to the distribution center operator 107 via the operator interface 312” (i.e., a weather event associated with the operating area is displayed to the operator before operation). “The distribution center operator 107 can follow procedures to recover UAVs 102 that have already been launched, to abort missions that have not been launched, and the like” (i.e., the operator ceases a scheduled vehicle mission before its operation-start or launch time). [0157] “The operator commands are received 484 by the remote vehicle manager 407” and “sent 485 to the UAV 102 as vehicle commands” (i.e., the centralized controller transmits a vehicle command based on the operator instruction), and [0158] “On receiving the vehicle commands, the UAV 102 will typically transition from one vehicle state to another vehicle state, and take the actions necessary to execute the vehicle commands” (i.e., the transmitted command controls the vehicle’s operating state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the combined Ide-Levinson-Schlacks system to transmit the cessation instruction before the affected first vehicle’s scheduled operation-start time, as taught by Chambers. Applying Chambers’s pre-launch cancellation timing to the affected-area stop process of Ide, Levinson, and Schlacks would predictably prevent the first vehicle from beginning a scheduled route that is already known to include the affected area, while allowing the second unaffected vehicle to receive its start instruction before its scheduled start time.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination to transmit the cessation instruction before operation begins to avoid allowing a vehicle to depart toward an area already known to be unsafe, closed, or otherwise non-operable [0099] that environmental information is provided so that the operator can “take actions necessary to protect the UAVs 102” and “abort missions that have not been launched” (i.e., pre-start cancellation protects vehicles from a known environmental hazard).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Yamanouchi (US 20200406913 A1), titled Deceleration Control Device of Automatic Driving Vehicle, generally discloses controlling deceleration and stopping of an automatically driven vehicle, including operator-initiated controls for decelerating or stopping the vehicle during automatic operation. Yamanouchi (US 20200406932 A1), titled Vehicle Control Device, generally relates to control of an automatically driven vehicle and is pertinent to the claimed vehicle-control and operation-instruction aspects. Ide (US 20200406933 A1), titled Automatic Driving Vehicle and Operation Management System, generally relates to an automatic driving vehicle operating in cooperation with an operation management system and is pertinent to the claimed centralized management and control of vehicle operation. These references are considered relevant to the general concepts of remotely or centrally controlling automatic vehicles, including starting, stopping, or otherwise modifying vehicle operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights