DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application No. 19/088226 filed on 3/24/2025. Claims 1-13 are pending for examination.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a management device” and “one or more relay devices” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 9 (although not verbatim, but contain the same concept) recite the following:
A remote support system for remote support of a moving body, the remote support system comprising:
a management device; and
one or more relay devices different from the management device, wherein the management device is configured to:
receive a support request transmitted from the moving body; and
select a support resource required for the remote support, and
the one or more relay devices are configured to relay data communication performed during the remote support, between the moving body and a remote support terminal.
The aforementioned bolded steps have been determined to be an abstract idea of a mental process that receives a support request and selects a relay device, of a plurality of relay devices, as the device to use to relay information from a management server to the remote vehicle for remote vehicle support. Effectively the idea of itself is for determining which relay device to use for sending and transmitting data between two points which is similar to the concepts deemed by the courts to be abstract such as collecting, analyzing, and displaying available data in Electric Power Group.
Each of the steps can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to collect and analyze data about the optimal relay device to select to use for the relay of data between a vehicle and management server.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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. The claims do contain the additional elements of a management device and one or more relay devices. However, each of the additional elements are claimed at such a high generality that they merely function as tools to apply the abstract idea, or more particularly, as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The courts have determined that additional elements 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 do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technological field. The additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements, considered both individually or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, dependent 2-8 and 10-13 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and convention additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under §101.
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, 4-6, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfadler et al. US 2021/0337431 (“Pfadler”).
As to claims 1 and 9, Pfadler discloses a remote support system for remote support of a moving body, the remote support system comprising:
a management device (see at least Fig 3, element 210; related text; base station 210); and
one or more relay devices (see at least Fig 3, elements V1-V3) different from the management device, wherein the management device is configured to:
receive a support request transmitted from the moving body (see at least [0083]: In operation at S5 it is checked if from any of the transportation vehicles V1 to V3 registered at the base station 210 a request for support by a ToD session has been received); and
select a support resource required for the remote support (see at least Fig 5, related text; [0083]-[0084]: …be checked for the transportation vehicle demanding the ToD session, if the pQoS profile is above a threshold Th. In the scenario of FIG. 2, the transportation vehicle V1 will send the request for a ToD session as explained above), and
the one or more relay devices are configured to relay data communication performed during the remote support, between the moving body and a remote support terminal (see at least [0060]: communications between a base station 210 of a communication cell and three transportation vehicles V1 to V3 and two sidelink communication links PC5 between the transportation vehicles V1 to V3 for serving as relaying node towards a first transportation vehicle V1).
As to claim 2, Pfadler discloses wherein the one or more relay devices are configured to at least temporarily record at least a part of data received via the data communication during the remote support (see at least [0040]: recording a position or time information from which on the relayed communication should be started).
As to claim 4, Pfadler discloses wherein the management device is further configured to select the one or more relay devices from among a plurality of relay device candidates (see at least Fig 5, related text; [0082]-[0084]: Optionally, the operation at S7 includes an operation of calculating a combined pQoS profile out of the profiles for the Uu3 and PC5 (V3, V1) link. FIG. 6D shows a resulting pQoS profile for the combination of Uu3 and PC5 (V3, V1) link).
As to claims 5 and 10, Pfadler discloses wherein the management device is further configured to: set a priority for each relay device candidate; and select the one or more relay devices from among the plurality of relay device candidates based on the priority (see at least Fig 5, related text; [0082]-[0084]: Optionally, the operation at S7 includes an operation of calculating a combined pQoS profile out of the profiles for the Uu3 and PC5 (V3, V1) link. FIG. 6D shows a resulting pQoS profile for the combination of Uu3 and PC5 (V3, V1) link).
As to claims 6 and 11, Pfadler discloses wherein the priority for each relay device candidate is set based on a communication distance between the moving body and the remote support terminal via each relay device candidate, with the priority for each relay device candidate to be higher as the communication distance is shorter (see at least Fig 5, related text; [0082]-[0084]: Since transportation vehicle V3 has the greatest distance to the base station 210, the pQoS profile does not fulfill the minimum requirement at the beginning but is good enough for the rest of the time since according to the planned trajectory 15 transportation vehicle V3 approaches the base station 210).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Thomas Ingram/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights