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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 06 August 2026. Claims 1-19 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation of “operating elements” has been fully considered and is not persuasive and is sustained. Amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 2, 3, 9 and 10 have been fully considered and is persuasive and rejection is withdrawn. Arguments and amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection to claims 1-15 have been fully considered, is not persuasive, and is sustained.
Examiner’s Response- Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees in part. Huang's virtual driving environment under broadest reasonable interpretation teaches abstracting the vehicle control elements to the virtual reality environment. The virtual reality environment is a model of the environment. Further applicant’s argument that Huang relies on generating a 1 to 1 representation of a vehicle is not persuasive because amended claim 1 does not prohibit said 1 to 1 representation of the vehicle. Applicant’s argument that the claimed transformation is not a graphical scene or visualization of a vehicle but instead describes physical functionalities and statuses of the vehicle such as braking and steering that are transformed into abstracted control/status elements of a model is not persuasive because the language of claim 1 does not limit the interpretation of abstracting control/status elements to not include graphical scene or visualization of the vehicle. Further applicant’s argument that Huang’s VR cockpit is not the same as the claimed vehicle-specific abstraction model is not persuasive since the claims do not prohibit the interpretation of a vehicle-specific abstraction model from being a VR cockpit and under BRI the VR cockpit simulates the specific vehicle environment which is abstracted from the physical vehicle in a virtual model. Further summer teaches abstracted control/status elements and Examiner does not rely on Huang for the abstracted control/status elements. Further, Huang teaches a “generic workspace” because under BRI a generic workspace is interpreted as a generic computer, screen or display since the screens of Huang are not depicted to be special or specific models, they must be generic. Lastly, the argument that Summer teaches abstraction of control elements used for validating or adjusting movement controls is not persuasive because, it would be obvious to modify Huang to abstract the control elements to control the vehicle.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to as being an improper claim dependent on itself. Correction is required.
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.
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:
Operating elements in claim 14
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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for operating elements:
" In an embodiment, the operating interface(s) comprise a computer mouse, a touchscreen, a keyboard, and/or a joystick. It is also possible to partly re-build a driver cab as a steering wheel can be used by many vehicles", [¶ 24, Pub]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 19 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.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear what the “delay” is for. Further it is unclear if the “minimum” is modifying only ‘delays’ or both “delays and slopes”. Lastly the “minimum” is unclear without a further definition of the scope of what is being minimized” for example it is unclear if the absence of braking is the minimum slope.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang teaches, a method for enabling remote driving control of railway vehicles, ship vehicles, drones, and/or farm vehicles via a generic workspace (Fig. 2a and Fig. 2B depict virtual environments for remote control of a plurality of types of vehicles such as Make X and Model Y which is interpreted as a generic workspace since it would apply to a plurality of vehicle types, see at least, ¶33, Huang), the method comprising: using, by a remote driving control system, a driving-control-converting-algorithm, wherein the driving-control-converting-algorithm transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle (Vehicle 102 state data (status elements) and calibration data 118 according to vehicle controls 112 (control elements) of a specific vehicle may be transmitted over the network to the remote control system 106 which is used to generate a model of the virtual control environment of the specific vehicle (vehicle-specific model), see at least, ¶44, Huang); providing, by the remote driving control system, the vehicle-specific model with data received from a vehicle operation onboard unit and/or a remote control onboard unit of the vehicle as input data (the vehicle state data and/or the calibration data may be determined using one or more sensors 110 of the vehicle 102 which is interpreted as a vehicle operation onboard unit and used to generate a representation of the environment of the vehicle (vehicle specific model), see at least, ¶44, Huang), wherein the vehicle-specific model is configured to recognize the data and pass it to the respective abstracted control elements and/or status elements which results in a real-time-vehicle-specific model (sensor data representative of the fields of view of the sensors (status elements) of the vehicle may be generated and transmitted to a control system of the remote operator in real-time and use the sensor data to generate a virtual environment and a world model manager 124 may be used to generate, update and define a world model and perceived in real-time, see at least, ¶29-30 and 62, Huang); and displaying, by the remote driving control system, the real-time-vehicle-specific model on the generic workspace that includes a remote operator workspace (the virtual environment may be displayed on virtual display screens of the remote operator, see at least, ¶32, Huang), wherein the vehicle is driven based on a remote operator interacting with the real-time-vehicle-specific model via operating element(s) of the remote operator workspace (the remote operator may use a view of the virtual environment and control components of the control system to control the vehicle in the physical environment and provide steering, braking and/or acceleration inputs via a virtual vehicle steering wheel 160, see at least, ¶34, 52, 98, Huang).
Huang does not explicitly teach transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle.
Summer, directed to a universal control architecture configured to control unmanned systems using a common control device teaches, transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle (By abstracting and generalizing the control information, control schemes and autonomy algorithms based on the common control data stream can be applied to a broad range of specific unmanned systems. Fig. 3 depicts universal control architecture … For example, functional subsystems that are common to more than one unmanned system can be abstracted into generic models to facilitate common control of the unmanned systems, see at least, ¶49-64, Summer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Summer which teaches transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle since they are both related to remote control of unmanned systems and incorporation of summer would enable operation of a wide variety of unmanned systems through the common control interface and control abstraction methods, so that the user's operational experience for each vehicle platform and/or payload platform is identical, allowing for expedient learning experience. Operational effectiveness and proficiency are also increased due the common experience (¶3, Summer).
Regarding Claim 14, Huang teaches, a remote driving control system for enabling remote driving control of railway vehicles, ship vehicles, drones, and/or farm vehicles via a generic workspace (Fig. 2a and Fig. 2B depict virtual environments for remote control of a plurality of types of vehicles such as Make X and Model Y which is interpreted as a generic workspace since it would apply to a plurality of vehicle types, see at least, ¶33, Huang), the method comprising: using, by a remote driving control system, a driving-control-converting-a, the system comprising a server (Fig. 7D Server(s) 778, see at least, ¶263-268, Huang) configured to: receive data captured by a vehicle (Vehicle 102 state data (status elements) and calibration data 118 according to vehicle controls 112 (control elements) of a specific vehicle may be transmitted over the network to the remote control system 106, see at least, ¶44, Huang) and to send driving commands of a remote operator to the vehicle (the remote operator may use a view of the virtual environment and control components of the control system to control the vehicle in the physical environment and provide steering, braking and/or acceleration inputs via a virtual vehicle steering wheel 160, see at least, ¶34, 52, 98, Huang); use a driving-control-converting-algorithm to abstract control elements and/or status elements of the vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle-specific-model for the vehicle (Vehicle 102 state data (status elements) and calibration data 118 according to vehicle controls 112 (control elements) of a specific vehicle may be transmitted over the network to the remote control system 106 which is used to generate a model of the virtual control environment of the specific vehicle (vehicle-specific model), see at least, ¶44, Huang); and provide the vehicle-specific-model with the data received from the vehicle as input data (the vehicle state data and/or the calibration data may be determined using one or more sensors 110 of the vehicle 102 which is interpreted as a vehicle operation onboard unit and used to generate a representation of the environment of the vehicle (vehicle specific model), see at least, ¶44, Huang), wherein the vehicle-specific-model is configured to recognize the data and pass the data to the respective abstracted control elements and/or status elements and to generate a real-time-vehicle- specific model (sensor data representative of the fields of view of the sensors of the vehicle may be generated and transmitted to a control system of the remote operator in real-time and use the sensor data to generate a virtual environment and a world model manager 124 may be used to generate, update and define a world model and perceived in real-time, see at least, ¶29-30 and 62, Huang); a display configured to display the real-time-vehicle-specific-model to the remote operator via the generic workspace (the virtual environment may be displayed on virtual display screens of the remote operator, see at least, ¶32, Huang); and operating element(s) configured to enable an interaction of the remote operator with the real-time-vehicle-specific model, wherein the real-time-vehicle-specific model is configured to generate driving commands based on the interaction (the remote operator may use a view of the virtual environment and control components of the control system to control the vehicle in the physical environment and provide steering, braking and/or acceleration inputs via a virtual vehicle steering wheel 160, see at least, ¶34, 52, 98, Huang.
Huang does not explicitly teach abstract control elements and/or status elements of the vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle-specific-model for the vehicle.
Summer, directed to a universal control architecture configured to control unmanned systems using a common control device teaches, abstract control elements and/or status elements of the vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle-specific-model for the vehicle (By abstracting and generalizing the control information, control schemes and autonomy algorithms based on the common control data stream can be applied to a broad range of specific unmanned systems. Fig. 3 depicts universal control architecture … For example, functional subsystems that are common to more than one unmanned system can be abstracted into generic models to facilitate common control of the unmanned systems, see at least, ¶49-64, Summer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang’s to incorporate the teachings of Summer which teaches abstract control elements and/or status elements of the vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle-specific-model for the vehicle since they are both related to remote control of unmanned systems and incorporation of summer would enable operation of a wide variety of unmanned systems through the common control interface and control abstraction methods, so that the user's operational experience for each vehicle platform and/or payload platform is identical, allowing for expedient learning experience. Operational effectiveness and proficiency are also increased due the common experience (¶3, Summer).
Regarding Claim 15, Huang teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 8, memory 804, see at least, ¶273-274, Huang) having instructions stored thereon for enabling remote driving control of railway vehicles, ship vehicles, drones, and/or farm vehicles via a generic workspace, wherein the instructions, when executed, facilitate performance of the following: using, by a remote driving control system, a driving-control-converting-algorithm, wherein the driving-control-converting-algorithm transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle (Vehicle 102 state data (status elements) and calibration data 118 according to vehicle controls 112 (control elements) of a specific vehicle may be transmitted over the network to the remote control system 106 which is used to generate a model of the virtual control environment of the specific vehicle (vehicle-specific model), see at least, ¶44, Huang); providing, by the remote driving control system, the vehicle-specific model with data received from a vehicle operation onboard unit and/or a remote control onboard unit of the vehicle as input data (the vehicle state data and/or the calibration data may be determined using one or more sensors 110 of the vehicle 102 which is interpreted as a vehicle operation onboard unit and used to generate a representation of the environment of the vehicle (vehicle specific model), see at least, ¶44, Huang), wherein the vehicle-specific model is configured to recognize the data and pass it to the respective abstracted control elements and/or status elements which results in a real-time-vehicle-specific model (sensor data representative of the fields of view of the sensors of the vehicle may be generated and transmitted to a control system of the remote operator in real-time and use the sensor data to generate a virtual environment and a world model manager 124 may be used to generate, update and define a world model and perceived in real-time, see at least, ¶29-30 and 62, Huang); and displaying, by the remote driving control system, the real-time-vehicle-specific model on the generic workspace that includes a remote operator workspace (the virtual environment may be displayed on virtual display screens of the remote operator, see at least, ¶32, Huang), wherein the vehicle is driven based on a remote operator interacting with the real-time-vehicle-specific model via operating element(s) of the remote operator workspace (the remote operator may use a view of the virtual environment and control components of the control system to control the vehicle in the physical environment and provide steering, braking and/or acceleration inputs via a virtual vehicle steering wheel 160, see at least, ¶34, 52, 98, Huang).
Huang does not explicitly teach driving-control-converting-algorithm transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle
Summer, directed to a universal control architecture configured to control unmanned systems using a common control device teaches, driving-control-converting-algorithm transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle By abstracting and generalizing the control information, control schemes and autonomy algorithms based on the common control data stream can be applied to a broad range of specific unmanned systems. Fig. 3 depicts universal control architecture … For example, functional subsystems that are common to more than one unmanned system can be abstracted into generic models to facilitate common control of the unmanned systems, see at least, ¶49-64, Summer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang’s to incorporate the teachings of Summer which teaches driving-control-converting-algorithm transforms control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle into abstracted control elements and/or status elements of a vehicle- specific model for the vehicle since they are both related to remote control of unmanned systems and incorporation of summer would enable operation of a wide variety of unmanned systems through the common control interface and control abstraction methods, so that the user's operational experience for each vehicle platform and/or payload platform is identical, allowing for expedient learning experience. Operational effectiveness and proficiency are also increased due the common experience (¶3, Summer).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the operating element(s) comprise a computer mouse, a touchscreen, a keyboard, and/or a joystick (remote control(s) 118 may include a steering wheel 168 (or other control(s) for providing steering inputs, such as keyboards, joysticks, handheld controllers, etc., see at least, ¶55, Huang).
Regarding Claim 11, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the remote operator workspace comprises virtual glasses, a desktop computer, a smartphone, and/or a tablet (the present system may leverage virtual reality (VR) technology to generate an immersive virtual environment for display to a remote operator using a VR system (e.g., displaying the immersive virtual environment on a VR headset, or a display thereof, of the VR system), see at least, ¶28, Huang).
Regarding Claim 12, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein an appearance of the real-time-vehicle-specific model is adjustable-by the remote operator; and/or wherein an appearance of the real-time-vehicle-specific model takes characteristics of the generic workspace into account (the remote operator may be able to move around the virtual environment 200 freely to control the virtual vehicle 202 from different vantage points (or may be able to change the vantage point to inside the virtual vehicle, as illustrated in FIG. 2B). For example, the remote operator may be able to sit on top of or above the virtual vehicle 202, to the side of the virtual vehicle 202, in front of the virtual vehicle 202, behind the virtual vehicle 202, etc., see at least, ¶105, Huang).
Regarding Claim 13, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1 wherein the driving-control converting algorithm and/or the real- time-vehicle-specific model are implemented on a cloud server in a cloud environment (Fig. 7D depicts a system diagram including a cloud-based server, see at least, ¶263, Huang).
Regarding Claim 16, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1.
Summer, directed to a universal control architecture configured to control unmanned systems using a common control device teaches, wherein the remote operator workspace comprises a control dashboard providing a generic control interface with only generic control elements applicable for different vehicle types, and wherein the method further comprises adapting, via a control adaptation module, generic control commands generated via the control dashboard back to vehicle-specific control commands for the vehicle (common control device 220 is interpreted as generic control interface where generic commands are applied to different unmanned systems having similar functions. Fig. 3 depicts a universal control architecture that shows the control data flow between a common control device to one or more device-specific heterogeneous unmanned systems representing intermediary abstractions of control data, see at least, ¶47 and 50, Summer)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang’s to incorporate the teachings of Summer which teaches wherein the remote operator workspace comprises a control dashboard providing a generic control interface with only generic control elements applicable for different vehicle types, and wherein the method further comprises adapting, via a control adaptation module, generic control commands generated via the control dashboard back to vehicle-specific control commands for the vehicle since they are both related to remote control of unmanned systems and incorporation of summer would enable operation of a wide variety of unmanned systems through the common control interface and control abstraction methods, so that the user's operational experience for each vehicle platform and/or payload platform is identical, allowing for expedient learning experience. Operational effectiveness and proficiency are also increased due the common experience (¶3, Summer).
Regarding Claim 17, Huang in view of Summer teaches,
The method of claim 16.
Summer, directed to a universal control architecture configured to control unmanned systems using a common control device teaches wherein the generic control elements include the abstracted control elements and/or status elements, and wherein the abstracted control elements and/or status elements are vehicle agnostic graphical representations of the control elements and/or status elements of the vehicle (Fig. 3 depicts platform conversion function blocks 350 that convert generic skid steer motion information from the generic skid steer vehicle model to specific skid steer vehicle motion information, see at least, ¶57, Summer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang’s to incorporate the teachings of Summer which teaches wherein the generic control elements include the abstracted control elements and/or status elements, and wherein the abstracted control elements and/or status elements are vehicle agnostic graphical representations of the control elements and/or status elements of the vehicle since they are both related to remote control of unmanned systems and incorporation of summer would enable operation of a wide variety of unmanned systems through the common control interface and control abstraction methods, so that the user's operational experience for each vehicle platform and/or payload platform is identical, allowing for expedient learning experience. Operational effectiveness and proficiency are also increased due the common experience (¶3, Summer).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11-17 and further in view of Sasaki, Hiroki et al. (US 20030168266 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Huang in view of Summer teaches,
The remote driving control system of claim 19 wherein the control adaptation module is further configured to enforce minimum time delays and slopes for increasing or decreasing brake forces based on the real-time-vehicle-specific model and real-time configuration data (calibration data may include braking sensitivity and determined based on make and model for vehicle type or encoded in the calibration by the vehicle in a data store, see at least, ¶44, Huang).
Huang in view of Summer does not explicitly teach enforce minimum time delays and slopes for increasing or decreasing brake forces.
Sasaki, directed to a brake control apparatus teaches, enforce minimum time delays and slopes for increasing or decreasing brake forces (see at least, ¶36, Sasaki).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang and Summer to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki which teaches enforce minimum time delays and slopes for increasing or decreasing brake forces since they are both related to vehicle controls and incorporation of the teachings of Sasaki would improve the brake control while improving the energy recovery efficiency of a braking operation.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11-17 and further in view of HOWARD; Bradley et al. (US 20210107535 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1,
Huang in view of Summer does not explicitly teach wherein the driving-control- converting-algorithm has access to and uses a database that stores default configuration data and/or real-time configuration data of the vehicle
Howard, directed to a system and method for train control teaches, wherein the driving-control- converting-algorithm has access to and uses a database that stores default configuration data and/or real-time configuration data of the vehicle (see at least, ¶14, Howard).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer to incorporate the teachings of Howard which teaches wherein the driving-control- converting-algorithm has access to and uses a database that stores default configuration data and/or real-time configuration data of the vehicle since they are both related to remotely controlling vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Howard would ensure the operation of the vehicle and computer systems is provided the most accurate and up to date information regarding operation characteristics (¶3, Howard).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang in view of Summer and Howard teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein the database stores the real-time configuration data, and wherein the real-time configuration data comprises sensor data of the vehicle, sensor data of another vehicle, sensor data of track sensors, and/or timetable data (sensor data, vehicle state data representative of the vehicle and/or calibration data and calibration settings may be retrieved from a data store, see at least, ¶30 and ¶92, Huang).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11-17 and further in view of IVANOV IGOR ANATOLEVICH et al. (RU 2612336 C2) (Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1.
Huang in view of Summer does not explicitly teach wherein at least two real-time-vehicle-specific models are displayed on a screen or on a virtual glass of the remote operator workspace.
Ivanov, directed to simultaneous control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles of different types teaches, wherein at least two real-time-vehicle-specific models are displayed on a screen or on a virtual glasses of the remote operator workspace (the control room is performed with the possibility of simultaneous control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles of different types and connected to the remote display for presentation of information on the course of flights in real time, see at least, ¶Abstract, ¶12, Ivanov).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer to incorporate the teachings of Ivanov which teaches wherein at least two real-time-vehicle-specific models are displayed on a screen or on a virtual glasses of the workspace since they are both related to remote control of unmanned vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Ivanov would enable air defense target practice by including UAV s simulating different types of targets and save costs by enabling reusability of UAVs as retrievable targets.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) and IVANOV IGOR ANATOLEVICH et al. (RU 2612336 C2) as applied to claims 4 and further in view of Price; Cecelia Anabel-Leigh (US 20180120829 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang in view of Summer and Ivanov teaches, the method of claim 4.
Huang in view of Summer and Ivanov does not explicitly teach wherein the real- time-vehicle-specific-model that corresponds to the vehicle the remote operator is currently driving is displayed in a highlighted mode on the remote operator workspace.
Price, directed to controlling unmanned aerial vehicles teaches, wherein the real- time-vehicle-specific-model that corresponds to the vehicle the remote operator is currently driving is displayed in a highlighted mode on the remote operator workspace (the system (e.g., the control application 138) may be configured to visually highlight the display of the selected UAV (e.g., UAV 144a in this example) relative to any other UAVs displayed on the map 142, see at least, ¶43, Price).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer and Ivanov to incorporate the teachings of Price which teaches wherein the real- time-vehicle-specific-model that corresponds to the vehicle the remote operator is currently driving is displayed in a highlighted mode since they are both related to controlling unmanned vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Price would increase public safety concerning identification and control of rogue UAVs.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1), IVANOV IGOR ANATOLEVICH et al. (RU 2612336 C2) and Price; Cecelia Anabel-Leigh (US 20180120829 A1) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Funke; Brian Gerard et al. (US 20210222406 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang in view of Summer, Ivanov and Price teaches,
The method of claim 5.
Huang in view of Summer, Ivanov and Price does not explicitly teach wherein the highlighted mode shows the current real-time-vehicle-specific model with a bigger size and/or with a higher data rate than another non-current real-time-vehicle-specific model.
Funke, directed to mission planning in an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine system teaches, wherein the highlighted mode shows the current real-time-vehicle-specific model with a bigger size and/or with a higher data rate than another non-current real-time-vehicle-specific model (Fig. 4 depicts a graphical operator display where the right half image is zoomed in, see at least, ¶35, Funke).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer, Ivanov and Price to incorporate the teachings of Funke which teaches , wherein the highlighted mode shows the current real-time-vehicle-specific model with a bigger size and/or with a higher data rate than another non-current real-time-vehicle-specific model since they are both related to Displays for controlling autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Funke would increase efficiency of project planning allowing a single operator to monitor and directed the activities of several different machines (¶2, Funke).
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11-17 and further in view of Golden; Samuel William et al. (US 9910433 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1.
Huang in view of Summer does not explicitly teach wherein a pop-up window with vehicle-specific information appears on the remote operator workspace based on the remote operator switching between different real-time-vehicle-specific models; and/or wherein a pop-up window with emergency information appears on the remote operator workspace based on an emergency being detected by the vehicle or by track sensors.
Golden, directed to Systems and methods for remotely operating a vehicle system teaches, wherein a pop-up window with vehicle-specific information appears on the remote operator workspace based on the remote operator switching between different real-time-vehicle-specific models; and/or wherein a pop-up window with emergency information appears on the remote operator workspace based on an emergency being detected by the vehicle or by track sensors (Fig. 6 depicts an illustration of the GUI 600 on the display 210 where a pop-up graphical window 602 representing the alert notification, see at least, ¶Col 14 line 34-64, Golden).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer to incorporate the teachings of Golden which teaches , wherein a pop-up window with vehicle-specific information appears on the remote operator workspace based on the remote operator switching between different real-time-vehicle-specific models; and/or wherein a pop-up window with emergency information appears on the remote operator workspace based on an emergency being detected by the vehicle or by track sensors since they are both related to Displays for remote control of autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Golden would reduce costs due to labor regulations for manned vehicles through the use of autonomous vehicles (¶Col 1, line 13-28, Golden).
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11-17 and further in view of SAKURAI; Hideyuki et al. (US 20220144086 A1) and Kernwein; Jeffrey D. et al. (US 9283945 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein an illustration of the vehicle is displayed in a virtual environment and/or within captured video data of the vehicle (see at least, ¶32, Huang),
Huang in view of Summer does not explicitly teach, wherein the illustration also shows steering angle and braking predictions as lines, and wherein the predictions are based on usage of the operating element(s) by the remote operator and the real-time-vehicle-specific model.
Sakurai, directed to a display control device for a vehicle teaches, wherein the illustration also shows steering angle (When a direction of motion of the vehicle predicted by the direction of motion prediction section is greater than a predetermined steering angle, the display control section 66 displays the direction of motion of the vehicle at the instrument panel 14 and the front pillar garnishes 20 (see FIG. 2), see at least, ¶156, Sakurai).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer to incorporate the teachings of Sakurai which teaches wherein the illustration also shows steering angle since they are both related to autonomous vehicle displays and incorporation of the teachings of Sakurai would “enable intuitive understanding of movements of a vehicle without attention being paid to a vicinity of a driver seat” (¶5, Sakurai).
Kernwein, directed to train control and braking systems teaches, braking predictions as lines (stopping distances are used to build a braking profile or curve that estimates or predicts when train will stop, such as at a specified target ahead on the track. This braking profile or curve is continually calculated using the braking model using the changing feedback and variable determinations to provide an updated braking profile or curve ahead of the train. In general, this braking profile or curve may be used to visually illustrate (e.g., to a train operator) where the train is predicted to stop if a full-service penalty brake application is initiated, see at least, ¶Col 1 Lines 48-64, Kernwein).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Huang in view of Summer and Sakurai to incorporate the teachings of Kernwein which teaches braking predictions as lines since they are both related to displays for vehicle controls and incorporation of the teachings of Kernwein would increase safe operation of the vehicle by displaying where predicted braking distance to the operator.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Jen-Hsun et al. (US 20190302761 A1) in view of Summer; Matthew D. et al. (US 20220415184 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11-17 and further in view of ULRICH MARKUS (DE 102020003207 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang in view of Summer teaches, the method of claim 9.
Huang in view of Summer does not explicitly teach wherein the operating element(s) comprises the joystick, wherein the joystick comprises force feedback elements, wherein force feedback is adjusted according to the vehicle that is currently under operation.
Ulrich, directed to electromechanical digital mechanical force feedback vehicle joystick teaches, wherein the operating element(s) comprises the joystick, wherein force feedback is adjusted according to the vehicle that is currently under operation (electro mechanical digital mechanical force-feedback vehicle joystick, see at least, ¶6, Ulrich).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Huang in view of Summer to incorporate the teachings of Ulrich which teaches wherein the operating element(s) comprises the joystick, wherein force feedback is adjusted according to the vehicle that is currently under operation since they are both related to Vehicle controls and incorporation of the teachings of Ulrich would adjust the stick steering force based on to the detected current movement of the vehicle wheels so the driver can feel whether his steering maneuver is physically feasible, (see at least ¶6, Ulrich).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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 amended to overcome 112 and 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights