CTNF 19/102,532 CTNF 99219 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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: “delay time estimation unit configured to…” in claim 1, 5-6. “parameter estimation unit configured to…” in claim 1, 7-8. “reaction force calculation unit configured to…” in claim 2, 3. “drive unit configured to…” in claim 2. “time point synchronization unit configured to…” in claim 5. “communication unit configured to…” in claim 9, 13. “vehicle control unit configured to…” in claim 10. 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. Regarding the limitation “delay time estimation unit configured to…”, “parameter estimation unit configured to…”, “reaction force calculation unit configured to…”, “drive unit configured to…”, “time point synchronization unit configured to…”, “communication unit configured to…”, and “vehicle control unit configured to…” see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below. 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 § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, and 5-8 and their dependents 4, and 9-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claim limitation “delay time estimation unit configured to…”, “parameter estimation unit configured to…”, and “reaction force calculation unit configured to…” in claims 1-3 and 5-8, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “delay time estimation unit configured to…”, “parameter estimation unit configured to…”, “reaction force calculation unit configured to…”, “drive unit configured to…”, “time point synchronization unit configured to…”, “communication unit configured to…”, and “vehicle control unit configured to…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are being interpreted as a processor with instructions. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim 1 is directed to a method of determining a route for mood improvement (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites: An information processing apparatus comprising: a delay time estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of vehicle state information, delay time occurring until a vehicle which is a target of remote driving executes, in response to a remote driving operation using an operation unit including a first steering wheel, an action corresponding to the remote driving operation, the vehicle state information including information from the vehicle, indicating a state related to the vehicle, and including one or more pieces of state data having added thereto a timestamp indicating an acquisition time point; and a parameter estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of the vehicle state information and the delay time, a model parameter that includes a parameter of a model that is used in calculation of a first steering reaction force for the first steering wheel. The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, “ a delay time estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of vehicle state information… a parameter estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of the vehicle state information ” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data to make an estimation. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering. Regarding claims 2-5, 14-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather the limitations include calculations that are mathematical concepts; thus the description of such elements do not take claims 2-5, 14-17 out of the realm of an abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 14-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 6-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather the limitations further narrow the “estimation” element of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such elements do not take claims 6-8 out of the realm of an abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 6-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 9-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather the limitations include communication signals that are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data transmission; thus the description of such elements do not take claims 9-13 out of the realm of an abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 9-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 18, it recites a method having substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reason. Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not within one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim 19 is directed to a program. Therefore, claim 1 is not within one of the four statutory categories. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 4, 8, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malder et al. (JP 2012504269 A) in view of MUNEHIKO et al. (JP 2010061346 A) . Regarding claim 1, Malder teaches: An information processing apparatus comprising: a delay time estimation unit configured to estimate , on a basis of vehicle state information, delay time occurring until a vehicle which is a target of remote driving executes, in response to a remote driving operation using an operation unit including a first steering wheel, an action corresponding to the remote driving operation, the vehicle state information including information from the vehicle, indicating a state related to the vehicle, and including one or more pieces of state data having added thereto a timestamp indicating an acquisition time point; and (Malder – On page 2, it states “The environmental state detection unit 101 detects information about the state of the control operation environment around the control object 114. The control object state detection unit 102 detects information about the state of the control object 114. ” On page 6, it states “In the process at step S7, the steering system auxiliary control unit 8 has been detected by the process at step S1, the horizontal distance l .sub.n between the running position of the center line L .sub.C and the vehicle A traveling lane of the vehicle, step Based on the difference δ between the ideal steering angle S ′ and the current steering angle S of the vehicle calculated by the process of S5 and the steering accuracy “a” estimated by the process of step S6 , described later… In the process of step S8 , the steering system auxiliary control device 8 performs control for generating a steering torque for the steered wheels.”) a parameter estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of the vehicle state information and the delay time , a model parameter that includes a parameter of a model that is used in calculation of a first steering reaction force for the first steering wheel. (Malder – On page 7, it states “Further, according to the vehicle operation support device 1 according to the first embodiment of the present invention, the ideal steering signal calculation circuit 5 includes a vector connecting the current position P .sub.0 of the vehicle and the travel target point P, and the traveling direction of the vehicle. With respect to a driver model in which the value of the ideal steering angle S ′ is 2 .Math. G .Math. υ .Math. (v / L) (v is the vehicle speed and G is the steering gain of the vehicle)”) Malder teaches a control system for a steering wheel that uses a model with parameters based on the state of the vehicle to determine best control for the vehicle. However, Malder does not teach a delay time estimation unit . MUNEHIKO teaches: An information processing apparatus comprising: a delay time estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of vehicle state information, delay time occurring until a vehicle which is a target of remote driving executes, in response to a remote driving operation using an operation unit including a first steering wheel, an action corresponding to the remote driving operation , the vehicle state information including information from the vehicle, indicating a state related to the vehicle, and including one or more pieces of state data having added thereto a timestamp indicating an acquisition time point; and a parameter estimation unit configured to estimate, on a basis of the vehicle state information and the delay time, a model parameter that includes a parameter of a model that is used in calculation of a first steering reaction force for the first steering wheel. (MUNEHIKO – On page 1 of the Merged Original and Translated NPL document it states “This remote control system is provided with: a delay time estimation means 31a estimating a communication delay time between the moving body B mounted with an imaging part acquiring an image of a movement area, and a remote controller C having a display part 33 displaying the acquired image and a control part 36 for remotely controlling the moving body based on the image displayed on the display part 33; a moving body position estimation means 31b estimating a moving body position in time when the moving body is controlled by the remote controller C based on a travel scheduled route, a moving speed, and the estimated delay time of the moving body to time when a required time lapses from time when the image of the movement area is acquired”) Malder and MUNEHIKO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder with MUNEHIKO. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device with a delay time estimation unit because the delay time provides information to the remote driver on how long the vehicle takes to respond to control. This allows the system to be safer and more efficient since the system will be able to expect a certain delay time in the action after communication. Regarding claim 2, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 1. Malder further teaches: further comprising: a reaction force calculation unit configured to calculate the first steering reaction force by using the model and the model parameter; and (Malder – On page 6, it says “The proportional constant K is a function of the lateral distance l .sub.n and the steering operation accuracy “a”. For example, the equation: K = F (l .sub.n , a) = | l .sub.n | × a × K .sub.0 It is represented by That is, the torque generated is changed according to the size of the accuracy of the steering and the horizontal distance l .sub.n "a". Specifically, the horizontal distance l .sub.n and the proportional constant K according to the accuracy of the steering "a" is increased becomes larger, the torque output rule is changed as indicated by a dotted line L2 in FIG. On the other hand, as the horizontal distance l .sub.n and the steering operation accuracy “a” become smaller, the proportionality constant K becomes smaller and the torque output law is changed as shown by a dotted line L3 in FIG.” On page 19, it further states “The control operation support device according to claim 4, wherein an ideal manipulator control signal is calculated using a model.”) a drive unit configured to generate the first steering reaction force to be applied to the first steering wheel, on a basis of a calculation result of the first steering reaction force. (Malder – On page 6, it states “In the process of step S8, the steering system auxiliary control device 8 performs control for generating a steering torque for the steered wheels. In the first embodiment, the steering system auxiliary control device 8 has an electric motor as a mechanism for generating a steering force, and performs motor control according to the torque output law set by the process of step S7. As a result, the driver feels the steering torque applied to the steering wheel via the steering wheel.”) Regarding claim 4, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 2. Malder further teaches: further comprising: the operation unit. (Malder – On page 3, it states “Hereinafter, the configuration of the vehicle operation support device according to the first to fifth embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.”) Regarding claim 8, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 1. Malder further teaches: wherein the parameter estimation unit updates the model parameter in real-time on a basis of the vehicle state information and the delay time during remote driving of the vehicle. (Malder – On page 10, it states “As shown in FIG. 14, the parameter ξ .sub.1 in this equation indicates an angle formed by the current traveling direction of the vehicle A and the position P .sub.1 on the center line L .sub.c after 1 second... It is desirable to change the parameters G .sub.1 and G .sub.2 in this formula depending on the vehicle, the driver, and the traveling environment.”) Malder teaches a model with parameters that are based on real time vehicle state information. However, Malder does not teach the delay time . MUNEHIKO teaches: wherein the parameter estimation unit updates the model parameter in real-time on a basis of the vehicle state information and the delay time during remote driving of the vehicle. (MUNEHIKO – On page 1 of the Merged Original and Translated NPL document it states “This remote control system is provided with: a delay time estimation means 31a estimating a communication delay time between the moving body B mounted with an imaging part acquiring an image of a movement area, and a remote controller C having a display part 33 displaying the acquired image and a control part 36 for remotely controlling the moving body based on the image displayed on the display part 33; a moving body position estimation means 31b estimating a moving body position in time when the moving body is controlled by the remote controller C based on a travel scheduled route, a moving speed, and the estimated delay time of the moving body to time when a required time lapses from time when the image of the movement area is acquired”) Malder and MUNEHIKO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder with MUNEHIKO. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device with a delay time estimation unit because the delay time provides information to the remote driver on how long the vehicle takes to respond to control. This allows the system to be safer and more efficient since the system will be able to expect a certain delay time in the action after communication. Regarding claim 14, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 1. Malder further teaches: wherein the model parameter includes a parameter indicating a condition of a road surface on which the vehicle travels. (Malder – On page 3, it states “The manipulator actuator, the environment, and the restrictions on the interaction between the controlled object and the environment are respectively the remote operation support device, the remote operator, the remote control vehicle, the manipulator output signal, the control input profile, the ideal tertiary of the remote control vehicle Corresponds to TTC for former trajectories, control stick actuators, road conditions (weather conditions, location of static and dynamic objects), and static or dynamic objects (restricted area, communication time delay).”) Regarding claim 16, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 1. Malder further states: wherein the model includes a vehicle model that models the vehicle and an environment model that models an environment around the vehicle. (Malder – On page 5, it states “Detected by the vehicle operation state detection device 2 and the environmental state detection device 3 for a driver model with 2 .Math. G .Math. υ .Math. (v / L) (v is the vehicle speed and G is the steering gain of the vehicle)” Note: The examiner notes that the vehicle operation state detection device receives the vehicle data for the model and environmental state detection device receives the environmental data for the model.) Regarding claim 17, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 16. Malder further states: wherein the environment around the vehicle includes a condition of a road surface on which the vehicle travels. (Malder – On page 3, it states “The manipulator actuator, the environment, and the restrictions on the interaction between the controlled object and the environment are respectively the remote operation support device, the remote operator, the remote control vehicle, the manipulator output signal, the control input profile, the ideal tertiary of the remote control vehicle Corresponds to TTC for former trajectories, control stick actuators, road conditions (weather conditions, location of static and dynamic objects), and static or dynamic objects (restricted area, communication time delay).”) Regarding claim 18, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. Regarding claim 19, it recites a program with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malder et al. (JP 2012504269 A) in view of MUNEHIKO et al. (JP 2010061346 A) and further in view of KODERA (US 20250091642 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 2. Malder further teaches: wherein the reaction force calculation unit calculates the first steering reaction force by using the model and the model parameter on a basis of a steering angle and a steering speed of the first steering wheel. (Malder – On page 5, it states “Detected by the vehicle operation state detection device 2 and the environmental state detection device 3 for a driver model with 2 .Math. G .Math. υ .Math. (v / L) (v is the vehicle speed and G is the steering gain of the vehicle) By inputting the information, an ideal steering angle S ′ for reaching the travel target point P calculated by the process of step S2 is calculated.”) Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the calculation of a steering control force based on a steering angle. However, Malder and MUNEHIKO do not teach the calculation of a steering control force based on a steering angle and a steering speed . KODERA teaches: wherein the reaction force calculation unit calculates the first steering reaction force by using the model and the model parameter on a basis of a steering angle and a steering speed of the first steering wheel. (KODERA – Paragraph [0038] states “A linear operator M40 is a process of calculating a first-order time differential value of the rotational angle θ a and substituting the calculated value into a steering angular speed ωh. A damping process M42 is a process of calculating a target reaction force Ts2* according to the steering angular speed ωh and the vehicle speed V. The damping process M42 may be a process in which the PU 72 calculates the target reaction force Ts* through map calculation with map data stored in the storage device 74. Here, the map data have the steering angular speed wh and the vehicle speed V as input variables, and have the target reaction force Ts2* as an output variable.”) Malder, MUNEHIKO, and KODERA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of steering control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with KODERA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with the use of a steering angle and a steering speed because the steering angle and speed provides information to the system that allows it to be more efficient since steering at different angles require a change in the angle at different speeds . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malder et al. (JP 2012504269 A) in view of MUNEHIKO et al. (JP 2010061346 A) and further in view of ICHIMURA et al. (US 20180109655 A1) . Regarding claim 5, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 1. Malder further teaches: the timestamp is added to the state data on a basis of the second timer, and (Malder – On page 19, it states “A control signal prediction unit that predicts information on a control operation state when a predetermined future time point is reached based on information on the state of the control target detected by the control target state detection unit;”) the delay time estimation unit estimates the delay time on a basis of an operation time point and a time point indicated by the timestamp added to the state data, the operation time point being a time point at which the remote driving operation has been performed and which is based on the first timer. (Malder – On page 19, it states “A control signal prediction unit that predicts information on a control operation state when a predetermined future time point is reached based on information on the state of the control target detected by the control target state detection unit;”) Malder teaches the use of a timestamp in the state data of the vehicle. However, Malder does not teach a time point synchronization unit configured to perform time point synchronization between a first time and a second timer in the vehicle . MUNEHIKO further teaches: further comprising: a time point synchronization unit configured to perform time point synchronization between a first timer and a second timer included in the vehicle, wherein (MUNEHIKO – On Page 3 of the Google Patents translation, it states “In addition, GPS is installed in both the unmanned vehicle B and the remote control device C, the time synchronization with high accuracy is performed by both computers using the GPS, and the delay time is estimated based on the time stamp of the received data.”) MUNEHIKO teaches the use of time point synchronization based on timers on equipment in the vehicle. However, Malder and MUNEHIKO do not teach time point synchronization between a first time and a second timer . ICHIMURA teaches: further comprising: a time point synchronization unit configured to perform time point synchronization between a first timer and a second timer included in the vehicle, wherein the timestamp is added to the state data on a basis of the second timer, and (ICHIMURA – Paragraph [0010] states “The second communication means includes a second timer that defines a time of data transmission and is time-synchronized with an entity to and from which data is transmitted and received. The control device includes synchronization means configured to time-synchronize the first timer and the second timer.”) Malder, MUNEHIKO and ICHIMURA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with ICHIMURA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with time point synchronization because the synchronization provides information to the remote driver on how long the vehicle takes to respond to control. This allows the system to be safer and more efficient since the system will be able to expect a certain delay time in the action after communication. Regarding claim 6, Malder, MUNEHIKO and ICHIMURA teach the limitations of claim 5. Malder further teaches: wherein the delay time estimation unit estimates an action time point which is a time point at which the vehicle has performed an action corresponding to the remote driving operation, on a basis of the state data and the timestamp , and estimates the delay time on a basis of a difference between the operation time point and the action time point. (Malder – On page 8, it states “The vehicle operation support apparatus 20 having such a configuration outputs vehicle operation support control suitable for the state of the vehicle operation by the driver and the environment around the vehicle by executing the following vehicle operation support control process. To do. Hereinafter, with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG. 11, operation | movement of the vehicle operation assistance apparatus 20 at the time of performing this vehicle operation assistance control process is demonstrated.” On page 4, it further states “The travel target point generation circuit 4, the ideal steering signal calculation circuit 5, the difference calculation circuit 6, and the operation accuracy estimation circuit 7 are respectively an ideal control path generation unit 13 and an ideal control signal calculation unit 14 according to the present invention shown in FIG. , Corresponding to the difference calculating means 15 and the operation accuracy estimating means 16.” Note: The examiner interprets the accuracy estimation unit that determines the accuracy of the operation being carried out including a difference calculation as including the difference of time.) Malder teaches the timing of the action performed by the vehicle based on the remote vehicle control command. However, Malder does not teach a delay time estimation unit and a timestamp . MUNEHIKO further teaches: wherein the delay time estimation unit estimates an action time point which is a time point at which the vehicle has performed an action corresponding to the remote driving operation, on a basis of the state data and the timestamp, and estimates the delay time on a basis of a difference between the operation time point and the action time point. (MUNEHIKO – On Page 3 of the Google Patents translation, it states “In addition, GPS is installed in both the unmanned vehicle B and the remote control device C, the time synchronization with high accuracy is performed by both computers using the GPS, and the delay time is estimated based on the time stamp of the received data.” On page 1 of the Merged Original and Translated NPL document it states “This remote control system is provided with: a delay time estimation means 31a estimating a communication delay time between the moving body B mounted with an imaging part acquiring an image of a movement area, and a remote controller C having a display part 33 displaying the acquired image and a control part 36 for remotely controlling the moving body based on the image displayed on the display part 33; a moving body position estimation means 31b estimating a moving body position in time when the moving body is controlled by the remote controller C based on a travel scheduled route, a moving speed, and the estimated delay time of the moving body to time when a required time lapses from time when the image of the movement area is acquired”) Malder, MUNEHIKO and ICHIMURA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with ICHIMURA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with time point synchronization because the synchronization provides information to the remote driver on how long the vehicle takes to respond to control. This allows the system to be safer and more efficient since the system will be able to expect a certain delay time in the action after communication . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malder et al. (JP 2012504269 A) in view of MUNEHIKO et al. (JP 2010061346 A) and further in view of TAMAGAWA (US 20230090302 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 1. However, Malder and MUNEHIKO do not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9. TAMAGAWA teaches: comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with the vehicle, transmit, to the vehicle, a vehicle control signal that includes control information regarding the vehicle and that is based on the remote driving operation, and receive the vehicle state information from the vehicle. (TAMAGAWA – Fig. 1, see below, elements 14 and 24 are control units that include communication modules, which can be seen by the wireless communication 10. Paragraph [0024] states “ As illustrated in FIG. 5, the control unit 14 is configured as a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU) 50A serving as a processor, read only memory (ROM) 50B and random access memory (RAM) 50C serving as a memory, an input/output I/F 50D, a communication I/F 50E , and so on... By doing so, the control unit 14 receives operating instructions (control data) transmitted from the remote cockpit 20, and drives the drive actuator 15, operates an accelerator pedal (travels), operates a steering wheel (steers), operates a brake pedal (stops), and so on based on these operating instructions, so as to control actual driving.”) PNG media_image1.png 408 758 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 368 510 media_image2.png Greyscale Malder, MUNEHIKO and TAMAGAWA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with TAMAGAWA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with a communication unit because the communication between the remote operation and the vehicle is vital to the operation of the remote operating system. Regarding claim 10, Malder, MUNEHIKO, and TAMAGAWA teach the limitations of claim 9. Malder further states: further comprising: a vehicle control unit configured to generate the vehicle control signal on a basis of the remote driving operation. (Malder – On page 2, it states “As shown in FIG. 1, the control operation support apparatus according to the present invention includes an environmental state detection unit 101, a controlled object state detection unit 102, an ideal interaction generation unit 103, an ideal manipulator control signal generation unit 104, and an operation accuracy estimation unit.”) Regarding claim 11, Malder, MUNEHIKO, and TAMAGAWA teach the limitations of claim 10. TAMAGAWA further states: wherein the vehicle control signal includes control information associated with a remote operation of a second steering wheel included in the vehicle. (TAMAGAWA – Paragraph [0037] states “The value of the steering amount when the steering wheel 36 in the remote cockpit 20 is steered and the value of the steering amount of the steering wheel in the actual vehicle 12 when this is performed are monitored and compared, and the communication lag amount is computed by the control unit 24 from at least one of a change trend (rate of change) or average values.”) Malder, MUNEHIKO and TAMAGAWA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with TAMAGAWA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with a communication unit because the communication between the remote operation and the vehicle is vital to the operation of the remote operating system. Regarding claim 13, Malder, MUNEHIKO, and TAMAGAWA teach the limitations of claim 9. TAMAGAWA further states: wherein the delay time includes communication time between the communication unit and the vehicle. (TAMAGAWA – Paragraph [0008] states “In the first aspect, the steering information for steering the steering unit is displayed on the display unit based on the communication lag amount acquired by the acquisition section. Thus, even when there is a lapse between a steering timing by an operator in a pilot seat and a steering timing in the mobile body that is actually traveling due to a communication lag between the pilot seat and the mobile body, the operator remotely operating the mobile body can readily accurately ascertain the movement of the actual mobile body during steering by viewing the steering information displayed on the display unit.”) Malder, MUNEHIKO and TAMAGAWA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with TAMAGAWA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with a communication unit because the communication between the remote operation and the vehicle is vital to the operation of the remote operating system. This allows the system to be safer and more efficient since the system will be able to expect a certain delay time in the action after communication . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malder et al. (JP 2012504269 A) in view of MUNEHIKO et al. (JP 2010061346 A) and further in view of TAMAGAWA (US 20230090302 A1) and further in view of KODERA (US 20250091642 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Malder, MUNEHIKO, and TAMAGAWA teach the limitations of claim 11. However, Malder, MUNEHIKO, and TAMAGAWA do not teach the limitations of claim 12. KODERA teaches: wherein the vehicle control signal includes control information indicating a steering angle and a steering speed of the second steering wheel. (KODERA – Paragraph [0038] states “A linear operator M40 is a process of calculating a first-order time differential value of the rotational angle θ a and substituting the calculated value into a steering angular speed ωh. A damping process M42 is a process of calculating a target reaction force Ts2* according to the steering angular speed ωh and the vehicle speed V. The damping process M42 may be a process in which the PU 72 calculates the target reaction force Ts* through map calculation with map data stored in the storage device 74. Here, the map data have the steering angular speed wh and the vehicle speed V as input variables, and have the target reaction force Ts2* as an output variable.”) Malder, MUNEHIKO, TAMAGAWA and KODERA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of steering control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder, MUNEHIKO and TAMAGAWA with KODERA. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with the use of a steering angle and a steering speed because the steering angle and speed provides information to the system that allows it to be more efficient since steering at different angles require a change in the angle at different speeds . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malder et al. (JP 2012504269 A) in view of MUNEHIKO et al. (JP 2010061346 A) and further in view of YUKI (JP 2023169605 A) . Regarding claim 15, Malder and MUNEHIKO teach the limitations of claim 14. Malder further states: wherein the model parameter includes a friction coefficient of the road surface. (Malder – On page 3, it states “The manipulator actuator, the environment, and the restrictions on the interaction between the controlled object and the environment are respectively the remote operation support device, the remote operator, the remote control vehicle, the manipulator output signal, the control input profile, the ideal tertiary of the remote control vehicle Corresponds to TTC for former trajectories, control stick actuators, road conditions (weather conditions, location of static and dynamic objects), and static or dynamic objects (restricted area, communication time delay).”) Malder teaches the use of a model with parameters that include the road surface. However, Malder and MUNEHIKO do not teach the model parameter includes a friction coefficient . YUKI teaches: wherein the model parameter includes a friction coefficient of the road surface. (YUKI – On page 11, it states “In a modified example, the "road surface friction coefficient μ" is considered as the road surface condition. Road surface condition determination section 430 estimates the friction coefficient μ of the road surface in front of vehicle 100.”) Malder, MUNEHIKO and YUKI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malder and MUNEHIKO with YUKI. It would have been obvious to combine a remote driving operation with a steering device and a delay time estimation unit with a friction coefficient because this allows the system to be safer and more efficient since the system will be able to expect a certain amount of friction or movement in the vehicle based on the vehicles environment. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2. 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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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. /E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 11 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 12 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 13 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 14 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 15 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 16 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 17 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 18 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 19 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 20 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 21 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 22 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 23 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 24 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 25 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 26 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 27 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 28 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 29 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 30 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 31 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 32 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/102,532 Page 33 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights