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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/28/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 07/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a “:” after “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 5 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.
The term “typical” in claims 4 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “typical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear what a “typical value of sensor information” or a “typical value of operation information” would be.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
5 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claims for this rejection and is reproduced below with the abstract ideas in bold and additional limitations underlined.
A remote driving system [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], comprising
a processor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that determines a remote driver who remotely drives a remote driving target vehicle [mental process/step],
wherein processing in the processor includes first processing of selecting one remote driver group from one or more remote driver groups including at least one remote driver [mental process/step] and second processing of selecting one remote driver from the one remote driver group [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claims recite machine. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2016.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes (mental process
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of “determines a remote driver who remotely drives a remote driving target vehicle, wherein processing in the processor includes first processing of selecting one remote driver group from one or more remote driver groups including at least one remote driver and second processing of selecting one remote driver from the one remote driver group”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a “remote driving system, comprising a processor”. That is, other than reciting “remote driving system, comprising a processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “remote driving system, comprising a processor” language, the claim encompasses a person selecting a group of drivers (i.e. divers that are qualified to remotely drive the selected vehicle, drivers that are not currently remote controlling a vehicle, etc.), and selecting a person from among that group. The mere nominal recitation “remote driving system, comprising a processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “remote driving system, comprising a processor”. The “remote driving system, comprising a processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose system i.e. a computer. The “remote driving system, comprising a processor” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “remote driving system, comprising a processor” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. the specification does not provide any indication that the “remote driving system, comprising a processor” is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Independent claims 15 and 18 have similar and are rejected for the same reasons above. Dependent claims 2-14, 16, and 17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14, 16, and 17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1, 15, and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0031808 (Nakagawa et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 15, and 18
Nakagawa discloses: A remote driving system (see at least Fig 1; #10; and ¶0039), comprising
a processor (see at least Fig 1 and 6; #18 and 60A; and ¶0083) that determines a remote driver who remotely drives a remote driving target vehicle (see at least Fig 1; #18; and ¶0039, ¶0043; Discussing determining which remote operator will control the vehicle.),
wherein processing in the processor includes first processing of selecting one remote driver group from one or more remote driver groups including at least one remote driver (see at least Fig 6 and 8(A-C); #660; and ¶0084-89; discussing grouping operators by time and region.) and second processing of selecting one remote driver from the one remote driver group (see at least Fig 6-8; #620; and ¶0083-92; Discussing that the system selects a remote operator from the group of remote operators.).
With respect to claim 2
Nakagawa discloses:
wherein sensor information and operation information of the remote driving target vehicle at a time of remote driving of a remote driver determined in the processor is shared with a remote driving group including the remote driver (see at least Fig 10 and 14; S20 and S40; and ¶0103 and ¶0145; Discussing transmitting image data to a group of remote operators.).
With respect to claims 3 and 16
Nakagawa discloses:
wherein in the first processing, the one remote driver group is selected on a basis of either one or both of sensor information and operation information of the remote driving target vehicle (see at least Fig 6 and 8(A-C); #660; and ¶0084-89; discussing grouping operators by time and region.).
With respect to claim 4
Nakagawa discloses:
wherein when the remote driving target vehicle comprises a plurality of remote driving target vehicles (see at least Fig 7-10; #600; and ¶0015-16, ¶0080, and ¶0089-99), a typical value of sensor information of the plurality of remote driving target vehicles is used as the sensor information (see at least Fig 10 and 14; S20 and S40; and ¶0103 and ¶0145; Discussing transmitting image data to a group of remote operators. Also see the 112(b) rejection above).
With respect to claim 5
Nakagawa discloses:
wherein when the remote driving target vehicle comprises a plurality of remote driving target vehicles (see at least Fig 7-10; #600; and ¶0015-16, ¶0080, and ¶0089-99), a typical value of operation information of the plurality of remote driving target vehicles is used as the operation information (see at least Fig 10 and 14; S20 and S40; and ¶0103 and ¶0145; Discussing transmitting image data to a group of remote operators. Also see the 112(b) rejection above).
With respect to claim 6
Nakagawa discloses: wherein the sensor information is information about any one of a vehicle position change over time, a maximum number of vehicles, an average number of vehicles, a minimum vehicle-to-vehicle distance, an average vehicle-to-vehicle distance, a relative speed distribution change over time, a maximum relative speed value, an estimated vehicle type, or a rough vehicle body shape of a surrounding vehicle, a guardrail position, a signal position, or a stop line position, which is acquired by any one of a camera, a radar, or a LiDAR of the remote driving target vehicle or by a combination thereof, or information about any combination thereof (see at least Fig 1, 5, 10, and 14; #24, #26, #400, S20, and S40; and ¶0055-56, ¶0077, ¶0103, and ¶0145).
With respect to claims 8 and 17
Nakagawa discloses:
wherein in the second processing, the one remote driver is selected on a basis of information related to each remote driver included in the one remote driver group (see at least Fig 6-8; #620; and ¶0083-92).
With respect to claim 9
Nakagawa discloses:
wherein the information related to the remote driver is information about any one of connection information, health information, or work information of the remote driver or information about any combination thereof (see at least Fig 6-8; #620; and ¶0083-92).
With respect to claim 10
Nakagawa discloses: wherein the processor determines, when a remote driving request is made from the remote driving target vehicle, a remote driver who remotely drives the remote driving target vehicle (see at least Fig 10 and 14; S21 and S41; and ¶0104 and ¶0146).
With respect to claim 11
Nakagawa discloses: wherein the processor determines, when an abnormality in driving of the remote driving target vehicle is detected, a remote driver who remotely drives the remote driving target vehicle (see at least Fig 10 and 14; S21 and S41; and ¶0104 and ¶0146).
With respect to claim 12
Nakagawa discloses: wherein the processor determines, when a remote driver change request is made from a first remote driver who is remotely driving the remote driving target vehicle, a second remote driver that remotely drives the remote driving target vehicle (see at least Fig 11; S100-103; ¶0119-133).
With respect to claim 13
Nakagawa discloses: wherein the processor performs the first processing of selecting one remote driver group from one or more remote driver groups including at least one remote driver and the second processing of selecting one remote driver from the one remote driver group, thereby determining the second remote driver (see at least Fig 6-8; #620; and ¶0083-92; Discussing that the system selects a remote operator from the group of remote operators.).
With respect to claim 14
Nakagawa discloses: wherein the processor performs, when the first remote driver has been determined by performing the first processing of selecting one remote driver group from one or more remote driver groups including at least one remote driver and the second processing of selecting one remote driver from the one remote driver group, processing of selecting one remote driver different from the first remote driver from the remote driver group including the first remote driver, thereby determining the second remote driver (see at least Fig 6-8 and 11; #620 and S100-103; and ¶0083-92 and ¶0119-133; Discussing that the system selects a remote operator from the group of remote operators.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0031808 (Nakagawa et al.) in view of US 2020/0133260 (Chambers et al.).
With respect to claim 7
Nakagawa does not specifically teach:
wherein the operation information is information about any one of a speed history, an acceleration history, a steering operation history, an accelerator operation history, a brake operation history, a history of engine revolutions per minute, an engine temperature history, a remaining amount of fuel or battery charge, an estimated load weight value, a vehicle body size, or a vehicle body shape of the remote driving target vehicle or information about any combination thereof.
However Chambers teaches:
wherein the operation information is information about any one of a speed history, an acceleration history, a steering operation history, an accelerator operation history, a brake operation history, a history of engine revolutions per minute, an engine temperature history, a remaining amount of fuel or battery charge, an estimated load weight value, a vehicle body size, or a vehicle body shape of the remote driving target vehicle or information about any combination thereof (see at least Fig 1(A) and 4(c); #102 and #108; and ¶0078, ¶0107, ¶0109, ¶0153-156).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for choosing a remote operator disclosed in Nakagawa with the system for choosing a remote operator and transferring different types of operational information taught in Chambers with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to better control the remote vehicle (see Chambers ¶0006, ¶0078, ¶0107, ¶0109, ¶0153-156).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Method and System for Optimizing Teleoperated Driving of Autonomous Vehicles IP.com Electronic Publication Date: December 15, 2023: Allocating teleoperating drivers.
-
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights