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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 04/07/2025. Claims 2-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 1 is canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 04/04/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, and therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites “determining that a condition associated with the constraint is satisfied;” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a mental process provided a human observing the environment of a vehicle. The claim does not meaningfully limit how the analysis (determination) is performed, and there is nothing about performing the analysis of determining if a condition for a vehicle constraint is satisfied that would limit how it can be performed. For example, nothing in the claims, outside of the generic recitation of “a computing device” limits the scope of performing the mental process, as a human could reasonably observe the environment of a vehicle to determine if a condition associated with a constraint is satisfied. The claim does not provide any details about how the output of the analysis is used to effectuate any meaningful operation of the vehicle, and the plain meaning of “determine” encompasses performing a mental process, e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Under step 2A, prong 2 claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitations “A method comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a computing device, first input data that includes a selection of a vehicle within an environment; establishing, in response to the first input data, a connection with the vehicle; receiving, via the user interface and based at least in part on the connection, second input data that includes a constraint associated with movement of the vehicle; sending, to the vehicle via the connection, the constraint;”, and “receiving, via the user interface, third input data including a release signal; and sending, via the connection, the release signal to the vehicle.” are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering/outputting, merely reciting steps for gathering and outputting data either for or as a result of performing the mental process. For example, reciting steps to gather and define a position of each reference marker in the robotic and fixed camera coordinate systems used for performing steps of the mental process, amounting to nothing more than mere association determined as the result of performing steps of the recited mental process, and lacking any recitation to effectuate an output of performing the mental process as a control step, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for example recitations “A method comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a computing device, first input data that includes a selection of a vehicle within an environment; establishing, in response to the first input data, a connection with the vehicle; receiving, via the user interface and based at least in part on the connection, second input data that includes a constraint associated with movement of the vehicle; sending, to the vehicle via the connection, the constraint;”, and “receiving, via the user interface, third input data including a release signal; and sending, via the connection, the release signal to the vehicle.” again are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting under step 2B, as the gathering and defining of data pertaining to input data for performing steps of the mental process, establishment of a network connection, and outputting a of a release signal requires no more than ordinary skill in the art, and therefore is directed to well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, see MPEP 2106.05(d), II, i., iii., & iv. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claims 3, 5, & 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the claims are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting steps, for example reciting steps to further define pre-solution and/or post-solution activity for/as a result of performing the mental process and outputting data without significantly more, see claim 3, reciting steps for receiving second input data, and claims 5 & 7 reciting steps defining establishing the connection between the vehicle and the remote device. The mere recitation of when/how/what data is gathered/output, however again lacks a specific element reciting how the result of performing the mental process is applied or integrated as a specific control step, and therefore is directed to well understood routine and conventional activity in the art. These claims do not provide any details about how an output of the determination is used to control any meaningful operation of the vehicle, and the plain meaning of analyzing data encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Also see MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & See 2106.05(a) iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.2. 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. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 6, and 8-9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because claims recite steps to defining additional data, steps, and structures in the environment of the abstract idea, and therefore directed to generic linking. See claim 4 defining the location and operation of the generically recited computing device used for performing steps of the recited mental process, claim 6 defining the conditions used for evaluating the environment of the vehicle, claim 8 defining what data is displayed on the user interface, and claim 9 defining the vehicle constraint. Defining a technological environment of the mental process, merely links the process to generic data, steps or structure, lacking any element reciting how an output of performing the process is integrated to impact the operation of the vehicle or effectuate any control, see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e). 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. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409368) in view of Alalao et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0041994), in further view of Winter et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0192134).
Regarding claim 2
Caldwell discloses “receiving, via the user interface and based at least in part on the connection, second input data that includes a constraint associated with movement of the vehicle;” (See Caldwell Fig. 7, Char. 710 and [0050] disclosing receiving waypoints from a service computing device. The one or more waypoints may be used as constraints in determining a trajectory.).
Caldwell discloses “determining that a condition associated with the constraint is satisfied;” (See Caldwell [0060] sending sensor data to the service computing device to determine that the scenario is complete, such as providing a camera feed from the vehicle. Further, see [0027] disclosing determination of completion may be based on a planner system determining a trajectory which is allowable and/or can continue along a determined path, and [0102] disclosing the service computing device may receive a second request for remote guidance after the vehicle satisfies a final waypoint.).
Caldwell discloses “receiving, via the user interface, third input data including a release signal;” (See Caldwell [0061] disclosing the service computing device may send a release signal to the vehicle.).
Caldwell discloses “and sending, via the connection, the release signal to the vehicle.” (See Caldwell [0059] disclosing determining scenario completion for transmitting a release signal to the vehicle, based in part on a determination that the vehicle may safely navigate as the vehicle may detect, via the perception system, a previously occluded object.).
Caldwell discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “A method comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a computing device, first input data that includes a selection of a vehicle within an environment;”, “establishing, in response to the first input data, a connection with the vehicle;”, & “sending, to the vehicle via the connection, the constraint;”.
Alalao discloses “A method comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a computing device, first input data that includes a selection of a vehicle within an environment;” (See Alalao [0005] disclosing receiving a first user input on a user interface selecting a particular vehicle of a plurality of vehicles.).
Caldwell and Alalao are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caldwell to incorporate the teachings of Alalao to include a user interface for providing input of a vehicle selection in an environment. Doing so provides a known method in the art for providing remote teleoperations assistance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously improves the efficiency and effectiveness of a fleet of autonomous vehicles as a whole, as well as autonomous vehicles individually, see Alalao [0095].
Winter discloses “establishing, in response to the first input data, a connection with the vehicle;” (See Winter [0093] disclosing remote assistance for a vehicle may originate from a remote operator. The remote assistance may involve establishing a secure communication connection between the remote operator and one or more vehicle systems see Winter [0040].).
Winter discloses “sending, to the vehicle via the connection, the constraint;” (See Winter [0027] disclosing the computing device may use the operator's input to generate and send route instructions for the vehicle to perform.).
Caldwell and Winter are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caldwell to incorporate the teachings of Winter to include establishing connections for remote vehicle teleoperation assistance. Doing so provides a known method in the art for providing remote teleoperations assistance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables wireless communication between a computing device and vehicle systems, allowing for a remote operator to review a complex or unexpected situation encountered by a vehicle and provide incremental guidance to help the vehicle safely overcome the situation without requiring the vehicle to pull over or otherwise stop unnecessarily, see Winter [0002].
Regarding claim 3
“The method of claim 2, wherein receiving the second input data comprises: determining that the constraint is associated with a temporal condition;” (See Caldwell [0059]-[0060] disclosing determining scenario completion may be based in part on a generated waypoint, such as 112(N) being within a threshold distance (e.g., 0.5 meters, 0.5 feet, 10 inches, etc.) of an original route associated with the vehicle or a camera feed indicative of reaching the end of a construction zone.).
“determining that the temporal condition is satisfied;” (See Caldwell [0059]-[0060] disclosing determining scenario completion may be based in part on a generated waypoint, such as 112(N) being within a threshold distance (e.g., 0.5 meters, 0.5 feet, 10 inches, etc.) of an original route associated with the vehicle or a camera feed indicative of reaching the end of a construction zone.).
“and causing, based at least in part on the temporal condition being satisfied, the second input data to be sent to the vehicle.” (See Caldwell [0061] disclosing responsive to a determination that the scenario is complete the service computing device may determine that the scenario blocked a planned route 1of the vehicle and may generate an updated route for the vehicle to arrive at a pre-determined destination prior to sending a release signal.).
Regarding claim 4 and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 16
“The method of claim 2, wherein the computing device is associated with an operator located in the environment in proximity to the vehicle.” (See Caldwell [0047] disclosing the service computing device may automatically send the waypoint and/or associated orientation responsive to input by an operator and may be sent based on a determination that the points are validated (pass a remote guidance protocol). The operator is remote from the vehicle, see [0041].).
Regarding claim 5 and similarly with respect to claims 13 and 19
“The method of claim 2, wherein establishing the connection is further based at least in part on: determining that the computing device is within a threshold value, wherein the threshold value is at least one of: a first threshold distance between the computing device and the vehicle, a second threshold distance of a line of sight between the computing device and the vehicle, or a threshold signal strength associated with a network signal between the computing device and the vehicle.” (See Caldwell [0064] disclosing the service computing device may verify that conditions for guidance are met, and the conditions may include threshold bandwidth (e.g., equal to or greater than 10 megabytes per second, 15 megabytes per second, etc.), or threshold latency (e.g., equal to or less than 300 milliseconds, 250 milliseconds, etc.).).
Regarding claim 6
“The method of claim 2, wherein determining that the condition is satisfied based at least in part on at least one of: a determination that a vehicle speed is equal to or less than a maximum speed associated with the constraint; a threshold time period associated with the constraint has expired; a threshold distance associated with operating with the constraint has been traveled; a fault associated with the condition being resolved; or a determination that the vehicle is out of range of the computing device.” (See Caldwell [0059] disclosing determining scenario completion may be based in part on a generated waypoint, such as 112(N) being within a threshold distance (e.g., 0.5 meters, 0.5 feet, 10 inches, etc.) of an original route associated with the vehicle or a camera feed indicative of reaching the end of a construction zone.).
Regarding claim 8
“The method of claim 2, wherein the user interface includes at least one of: an identifier of the vehicle, state data of the vehicle, a map of the environment, or passenger data.” (See Caldwell [0016] disclosing the GUI may include a depiction of a top view of the vehicle and the remote guidance scenario in the environment.).
Regarding claim 9 and similarly with respect to claim 21
“The method of claim 2, wherein the constraint comprises a limitation on at least one of: continued movement of the vehicle; a speed; an acceleration; a turning radius; a mission type; operating the vehicle in an area; or a direction of travel.” (See Caldwell [0054] disclosing the operator may determine, based on sensor data, that the remote guidance scenario has associated therewith a speed limit of 10 miles per hour, and based on the speed limit of 10 miles per hour being less than the pre-determined maximum velocity of 15 miles per hour, the vehicle computing system may limit the velocity of the vehicle to no more than 10 miles per hour while navigating through the remote guidance scenario.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409368) in view of Alalao et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0041994), in further view of Winter et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0192134) in even further view of Magzimof et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0062267).
Regarding claim 7 and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 17
Caldwell modified in view of Alalao and Winter discloses “The method of claim 2,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein establishing the connection is further based at least in part on: sending, from the computing device, a connection request comprising an identifier associated with the computing device;”, “and establishing the connection with the computing device based at least in part on a validation of the identifier,”, & “wherein the second input data is sent via the connection.”.
Magzimof discloses “wherein establishing the connection is further based at least in part on: sending, from the computing device, a connection request comprising an identifier associated with the computing device;” (See Magzimof [0031] disclosing responsive to a remote support request, an operator ranking and selection unit may return a database of remote operator identifiers.).
Magzimof discloses “and establishing the connection with the computing device based at least in part on a validation of the identifier,” (See Magzimof Fig. 6, Char. 603-607 and [0070] disclosing the operator assignment module may sort the selected list of operators and select the operator with the highest score value to fulfill the remote support request. The operator assignment module enables the teleoperator support module to handle the remote support session for processing the request when a confirmation is received.).
Magzimof discloses “wherein the second input data is sent via the connection.” (See Magzimof [0020] disclosing the vehicle depends on a reliable network connection for streaming video or other sensor data to the remote support server and for receiving control inputs or data used by the vehicle to navigate in a safe and efficient manner.).
Caldwell and Magzimof are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caldwell to incorporate the teachings of Magzimof to include establishing connections for remote vehicle teleoperation assistance via identifiers. Doing so provides a known method in the art for providing remote teleoperations assistance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously allows for the vehicle systems to identify and filter the subset of operators qualifying for fulfilling the remote support session, see Magzimof [0071] and allows a vehicle controller to submit a remote request specifying a desired operator, see Magzimof [0078].
Claims 10-11, 14-16, and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409368) in view of Winter et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0192134).
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claim 15
Caldwell discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors;” (See Caldwell Fig. 8, Chars. 804 & 816 disclosing a vehicle with a plurality of processors.).
Caldwell discloses “receiving, from the computing device and via the connection, a signal comprising a constraint associated with operation of a vehicle;” (See Caldwell Fig. 7, Char. 710 and [0050] disclosing receiving waypoints from a service computing device. The one or more waypoints may be used as constraints in determining a trajectory.).
Caldwell discloses “determining that a condition associated with the constraint is satisfied;” (See Caldwell [0060] sending sensor data to the service computing device to determine that the scenario is complete, such as providing a camera feed from the vehicle. Further, see [0027] disclosing determination of completion may be based on a planner system determining a trajectory which is allowable and/or can continue along a determined path, and [0102] disclosing the service computing device may receive a second request for remote guidance after the vehicle satisfies a final waypoint.).
Caldwell discloses “and controlling the vehicle in an autonomous mode based at least in part on the condition being satisfied.” (See Caldwell [0061] disclosing responsive to the release signal, the vehicle computing device may be configured to resume navigation of the vehicle.).
Caldwell discloses all the elements of claim 10 except “and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: establishing a connection with a computing device;”
Winter discloses “and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: establishing a connection with a computing device;” (See Winter [0093] disclosing remote assistance for a vehicle may originate from a remote operator. The remote assistance may involve establishing a secure communication connection between the remote operator and one or more vehicle systems see Winter [0040].).
Caldwell and Winter are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caldwell to incorporate the teachings of Winter to include establishing connections for remote vehicle teleoperation assistance. Doing so provides a known method in the art for providing remote teleoperations assistance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables wireless communication between a computing device and vehicle systems, allowing for a remote operator to review a complex or unexpected situation encountered by a vehicle and provide incremental guidance to help the vehicle safely overcome the situation without requiring the vehicle to pull over or otherwise stop unnecessarily, see Winter [0002].
Regarding claim 11 and similarly with respect to claims 4 and 16
See rejection of claim 4 in section 2. C
Regarding claim 14 and similarly with respect to claim 20
Caldwell discloses “The system of claim 10, the operations further comprising: determining that the constraint is associated with a guidance system located remote from an environment in which the vehicle is operating and configured to provide operational guidance to the vehicle;” (See Caldwell [0047] disclosing the service computing device may automatically send the waypoint and/or associated orientation responsive to input by an operator and may be sent based on a determination that the points are validated (pass a remote guidance protocol). The operator is remote from the vehicle, see [0041].).
Caldwell discloses “sending, to a second computing device associated with the guidance system, a guidance request comprising sensor data representative of the environment;” (See Caldwell [0060] sending sensor data to the service computing device to determine that the scenario is complete, such as providing a camera feed from the vehicle. Further, see [0027] disclosing determination of completion may be based on a planner system determining a trajectory which is allowable and/or can continue along a determined path, and [0102] disclosing the service computing device may receive a second request for remote guidance after the vehicle stratifies a final waypoint.).
Caldwell discloses “and receiving, from the second computing device, a release signal comprising an instruction to remove the constraint,” (See Caldwell [0061] disclosing the service computing device may send a release signal to the vehicle.).
Caldwell discloses “wherein the release signal is based at least in part on the sensor data,” (See Caldwell [0059] disclosing determining scenario completion for transmitting a release signal to the vehicle, based in part on a determination that the vehicle may safely navigate as the vehicle may detect, via the perception system, a previously occluded object. Further, see [0060] disclosing scenario completion may be based on sensor data input.).
Caldwell discloses “wherein determining that the condition associated with the constraint is satisfied is based at least in part on receiving the release signal.” (See Caldwell [0101] disclosing the operator may cause the service computing device to send a completion message (e.g., completion signal) to the vehicle computing system indicating that the guidance path is complete.).
Regarding claim 16 and similarly with respect to claims 4 and 11
See rejection of claim 4 in section 2. C
Regarding claim 21 and similarly with respect to claim 9
See rejection of claim 9 in section 2. G
Claims 12-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409368) in view of Winter et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0192134) in further view of Magzimof et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0062267).
Regarding claim 12 and similarly with respect to claims 7 and 17
Caldwell See rejection of claim 7 in section 3. A
Regarding claim 13 and similarly with respect to claims 5 and 19
See rejection of claim 5 in section 2. D
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409368) in view of Winter et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0192134) in further view of Magzimof et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0062267) in even further view of Sharma et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0123408) and Brooks (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0356814).
Regarding claim 18
Caldwell modified in view of Winter and Magzimof disclose “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining that the condition is satisfied is based at least in part on: determining that a distance between the computing device and the vehicle meets or exceeds a threshold distance;”, & “and causing, based at least in part on the distance meeting or exceeding the threshold distance, the connection between the vehicle and the computing device to be disconnected.”
Sharma discloses “wherein determining that the condition is satisfied is based at least in part on: determining that a distance between the computing device and the vehicle meets or exceeds a threshold distance;” (See Sharma [0006] disclosing determining that an operator terminal is in close proximity to a vehicle may comprise determining that a distance between a location of the vehicle and a location of the operator terminal is below a particular threshold.).
Caldwell and Sharma are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caldwell to incorporate the teachings of Sharma to include determining that a distance between the computing device and the vehicle meets or exceeds a threshold distance. Doing so provides a known method in the art for providing remote teleoperations assistance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously allows for the facilitation of safe communications between a vehicle and a remote device based on a distance threshold enabling reliable network communications, see Sharma [0149].
Brooks discloses “and causing, based at least in part on the distance meeting or exceeding the threshold distance, the connection between the vehicle and the computing device to be disconnected.” (See Brooks [0215] disclosing a remote-control system may connect or disconnect the communication device of additional remote-control systems with each other and/or the vehicle system to change the number of off-board operators assisting with control of the same vehicle system. The determination of when to increase and/or decrease the number of off-board operators to assign to controlling operations of the same vehicle system may be based upon data including from a location determining device.).
Caldwell and Brooks are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caldwell to incorporate the teachings of Brooks to include disconnecting a vehicle from a previously connected remote device. Doing so provides a known method in the art for providing remote teleoperations assistance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously allows for the vehicle systems to continue moving while not losing assistance of an off-board operator, when a different operator is necessitated, see Brooks [0212].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights