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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/7/2025 & 2/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a remote driving method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Similarly, Claims 11 & 20 are directed to a remote driving apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [i.e. machines] and are also within at least one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A remote driving apparatus, applied to a remote driving entity and comprising:
at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising:
first display code configured to display, via at least one display, a first environment image corresponding to a target vehicle in response to a remote driving request, wherein the first environment image comprises a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location, and [mental process/step]
wherein the first environment image is generated based on first local scene data, corresponding to the first location, in pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment; and [mental process/step]
second display code configured to display, via the at least one display, a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle, the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “wherein the first environment image is generated…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to how the scene data should be depicted as an environmental image. Similarly, the limitation “corresponding to the target vehicle…” in the context of the claim in each instance encompasses the determination of a second image based on vehicle location data, which are also simple judgments based on data collected under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A remote driving apparatus, applied to a remote driving entity and comprising: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising: applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)
first display code configured to display, via at least one display, a first environment image corresponding to a target vehicle in response to a remote driving request, wherein the first environment image comprises a first image of at least a part of a target environment [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process) 2106.05(g), applying the abstract idea using generic computing and display modules, Apply it 2106.05(f)] corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location, and
wherein the first environment image is generated based on first local scene data, corresponding to the first location, in pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment; and
second display code configured to display, via the at least one display, a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle, the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process) 2106.05(g), applying the abstract idea using generic computing and display modules, Apply it 2106.05(f)] corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one memory…,” “first display code…,” and “second display code…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The first and second display codes are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying environmental images acquired), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the “at least one memory…” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the mental process amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “at least one memory…,” “first display code…,” and “second display code…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 8 & 12 – 18 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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 2 recites wherein a remote driving request may be output based on the entry of data, which is the mere output of data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 3 recites specific images displayed based on the environmental context, which encompasses the mental process of determining data, and the mere output of data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 4 recites receiving data of specific types, which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 5 recites wherein a position of a vehicle at the next time step is predicted, with the corresponding data being displayed to the user, which is the mental process of predicting a future time step using mathematical operations, and outputting corresponding data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 6 recites wherein scene data is rendered through the prediction of future operation location, which is a mental process of evaluating data and forming a simple judgment under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 7 recites wherein environmental images are output based on a match between the predicted position of the vehicle and an actual position of the vehicle at a current moment, which is a mental process of data comparison and extra-solution activity of data output under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 8 recites wherein driving assistance information is displayed, which is the mere extra-solution activity of outputting data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claims 12 – 18 recite substantially similar limitations as those found in Claims 2 – 8, above, and are rejected under 35 USC 101 under similar rationale.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 8 & 12 – 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claims 1, 11, & 20.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 8, 11 – 18, & 20 is/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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joubert (US 11,938,963 B1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Joubert discloses: A remote driving method, applied to a remote driving entity and comprising: (Joubert discloses in at least Column 5 Lines 7 – 17 a method for operating a vehicle through the use of a teleassist system, including exchanging data between the vehicle and teleassist system [i.e. a remote driving method, applied to a remote driving entity])
displaying, via at least one display, a first environment image corresponding to a target vehicle in response to a remote driving request, (Joubert discloses in at least Column 14 Lines 4 – 21 a teleassist operator user interface, including a touchscreen display [i.e. at least one display] which may be used to display a graphical depiction of the immediate vicinity around the vehicle as disclosed in at least Column 14 Lines 41 – 56. At least Column 21 Line 55 – Column 22 Line 10 of Joubert discloses wherein situation data, including camera feed data, may be provided to a teleassist operator based on a teleassist request [i.e. in response to a remote driving request])
wherein the first environment image comprises a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location, and (Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 wherein in response to a request for a teleassist session, the remote teleassist system may receive data from a map fusion component and display the information to a teleassist operator, including map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, camera feed data, paths of other vehicles in the environment, and other telemetry data [i.e. a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location])
wherein the first environment image is generated based on first local scene data, corresponding to the first location, in pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment; and (Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Lines 3 – 36 wherein a map fusion component is configured to integrate or fuse static elements of an environment by an offline map system [i.e. pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment] with various observations currently detected in the environment by a perception component [i.e. first local scene data, corresponding to the first location] in order to generate a representation of the vehicle environment [i.e. generate the first environmental image])
displaying, via the at least one display, a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle, the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location. (Joubert discloses in at least Column 27 Lines 8 – 31 wherein during a teleassist session, situational awareness data and operator input [i.e. a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle] information may be exchanged between the vehicle and teleassist system while the teleassist session is active [i.e. displaying a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle], which may include map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, camera feed data, paths of other vehicles in the environment, and other telemetry data as disclosed in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 [i.e. the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location])
Regarding Claim 8:
The remote driving method according to claim 1, wherein an operation vehicle having an associated operation relationship with the target vehicle runs in the target environment, and wherein the remote driving method further comprises displaying driving assistance information comprising at least one of: relative location information of the operation vehicle and the target vehicle, a first operation status of the operation vehicle and a second operation status of the target vehicle, a relative operation progress of the operation vehicle and the target vehicle, or relative operating condition information of the operation vehicle and the target vehicle.
Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 wherein in response to a request for a teleassist session, the remote teleassist system may receive data from a map fusion component, including map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, and camera feed data, which may include paths of other vehicles in the environment, as well as relative locations of other vehicles and objects in the environment [i.e. an operation vehicle having an associated operation relationship with the target vehicle runs in the target environment, and wherein the remote driving method further comprises displaying relative location information of the operation vehicle and the target vehicle].
Regarding Claim 11:
Joubert discloses: A remote driving apparatus, applied to a remote driving entity and comprising: (Joubert discloses in at least Column 5 Lines 7 – 17 a teleassist system for operating a vehicle, including exchanging data between the vehicle and teleassist system [i.e. a remote driving apparatus, applied to a remote driving entity])
at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising: (Joubert discloses in at least Column 11 Lines 43 – 65 wherein the discloses routines may be implemented via program code stored on non-transitory memory, and executed by one or more processors [i.e. at least one memory configured to store computer program code and at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code])
first display code configured to display, via at least one display, a first environment image corresponding to a target vehicle in response to a remote driving request, (Joubert discloses in at least Column 14 Lines 4 – 21 a teleassist operator user interface, including a touchscreen display [i.e. at least one display] which may be used to display a graphical depiction of the immediate vicinity around the vehicle as disclosed in at least Column 14 Lines 41 – 56. At least Column 21 Line 55 – Column 22 Line 10 of Joubert discloses wherein situation data, including camera feed data, may be provided to a teleassist operator based on a teleassist request [i.e. in response to a remote driving request])
wherein the first environment image comprises a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location, and (Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 wherein in response to a request for a teleassist session, the remote teleassist system may receive data from a map fusion component and display the information to a teleassist operator, including map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, camera feed data, paths of other vehicles in the environment, and other telemetry data [i.e. a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location])
wherein the first environment image is generated based on first local scene data, corresponding to the first location, in pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment; and (Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Lines 3 – 36 wherein a map fusion component is configured to integrate or fuse static elements of an environment by an offline map system [i.e. pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment] with various observations currently detected in the environment by a perception component [i.e. first local scene data, corresponding to the first location] in order to generate a representation of the vehicle environment [i.e. generate the first environmental image])
second display code configured to display, via the at least one display, a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle, the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location. (Joubert discloses in at least Column 27 Lines 8 – 31 wherein during a teleassist session, situational awareness data and operator input may be exchanged between the vehicle and teleassist system while the teleassist session is active [i.e. displaying a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle], which may include map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, camera feed data, paths of other vehicles in the environment, and other telemetry data as disclosed in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 [i.e. the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location])
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 8, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 20:
Joubert discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer code which, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to at least: (Joubert discloses in at least Column 5 Lines 7 – 17 a teleassist system for operating a vehicle, including exchanging data between the vehicle and teleassist system. Joubert further discloses in at least Column 11 Lines 43 – 65 wherein the disclosed routines may be implemented via program code stored on non-transitory memory, and executed by one or more processors [i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer code which is executable by at least one processor])
display, via at least one display, a first environment image corresponding to a target vehicle in response to a remote driving request, (Joubert discloses in at least Column 14 Lines 4 – 21 a teleassist operator user interface, including a touchscreen display [i.e. at least one display] which may be used to display a graphical depiction of the immediate vicinity around the vehicle as disclosed in at least Column 14 Lines 41 – 56. At least Column 21 Line 55 – Column 22 Line 10 of Joubert discloses wherein situation data, including camera feed data, may be provided to a teleassist operator based on a teleassist request [i.e. in response to a remote driving request])
wherein the first environment image comprises a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location, and (Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 wherein in response to a request for a teleassist session, the remote teleassist system may receive data from a map fusion component and display the information to a teleassist operator, including map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, camera feed data, paths of other vehicles in the environment, and other telemetry data [i.e. a first image of at least a part of a target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a first location])
wherein the first environment image is generated based on first local scene data, corresponding to the first location, in pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment; and (Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Lines 3 – 36 wherein a map fusion component is configured to integrate or fuse static elements of an environment by an offline map system [i.e. pre-constructed global scene data of the target environment] with various observations currently detected in the environment by a perception component [i.e. first local scene data, corresponding to the first location] in order to generate a representation of the vehicle environment [i.e. generate the first environmental image])
display, via the at least one display, a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle, the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location. (Joubert discloses in at least Column 27 Lines 8 – 31 wherein during a teleassist session, situational awareness data and operator input may be exchanged between the vehicle and teleassist system while the teleassist session is active [i.e. displaying a second environment image corresponding to the target vehicle in response to a vehicle driving operation of a driver on the target vehicle], which may include map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, camera feed data, paths of other vehicles in the environment, and other telemetry data as disclosed in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 [i.e. the second environment image comprising a second image of at least a part of the target environment corresponding to the target vehicle at a current location])
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.
Claim(s) 2 - 4 & 12 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert (US 11,938,963 B1) as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Kinoshita (US 2020/0282980 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The remote driving method according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of: displaying, via the at least one display, a remote configuration page in response to a first driving trigger operation, and receiving a selection operation corresponding to the target vehicle in at least one candidate vehicle, wherein first vehicle information of the at least one candidate vehicle is displayed on the remote configuration page, and wherein the remote driving request is a first driving request triggered based on the selection operation; or displaying, via the at least one display, an information entry page in response to a second driving trigger operation, and receiving a driver information entry operation triggered based on an entry control, wherein the entry control is for entering driver information being displayed on the information entry page, and wherein the remote driving request is a second driving request triggered based on the driver information entry operation.
Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Lines 37 – 60 wherein in response to a teleassist trigger being determined, for example by a vehicle arriving at a location, a teleassist request may be generated. Joubert however appears to be silent regarding wherein a remote configuration page is displayed in response to a first driving trigger operation.
However Kinoshita teaches in at least Paragraphs 0102 – 0104 wherein a teleoperation request may be generated based on input from a user, the teleoperation request including vehicle information, and receiving a confirmation from a user of the vehicle to initiate the teleoperation request prior to controlling the vehicle via teleoperation as taught in at least Paragraph 0110 of Kinoshita [i.e. displaying, via the at least one display, a remote configuration page in response to a first driving trigger operation, and receiving a selection operation corresponding to the target vehicle in at least one candidate vehicle, wherein first vehicle information of the at least one candidate vehicle is displayed on the remote configuration page, and wherein the remote driving request is a first driving request triggered based on the selection operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Joubert by incorporating the presentation of a teleoperation request to a user as taught by Kinoshita.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kinoshita in at least Paragraphs 0102 – 0104, a user may better define parameter for teleoperation, improving the remote operation of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 3:
The remote driving method according to claim 2, wherein the displaying the first environment image comprises at least one of: displaying, via the at least one display, a third image in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the third image comprising at least a partial environment corresponding to the first location and at least one nearby vehicle in a vicinity of the target vehicle; displaying a fourth image in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the fourth image comprising at least the partial environment, as well as the at least one nearby vehicle and relative location information of the at least one nearby vehicle and the target vehicle; displaying, via the at least one display, a fifth image in response to the second driving request, the fifth image comprising at least the partial environment and second vehicle information of the target vehicle allocated by a server; or displaying, via the at least one display, a sixth image in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the sixth image comprising at least the partial environment and status data of the target environment, and the status data comprising at least one of meteorological data and light intensity of at least the partial environment, and a current status of an object with a changeable status in the target environment.
Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 wherein in response to a request for a teleassist session, the remote teleassist system may receive data from a map fusion component, including map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, and camera feed data, which may include paths of other vehicles in the environment [i.e. displaying, via the at least one display, a third image in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the third image comprising at least a partial environment corresponding to the first location and at least one nearby vehicle in a vicinity of the target vehicle].
Regarding Claim 4:
The remote driving method according to claim 2, farther comprising at least one of: receiving at least one of the global scene data of the target environment and first scene data from a server in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the first scene data being the first local scene data; receiving location information of at least one vehicle corresponding to the target environment from the server in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, and determining at least one nearby vehicle in a vicinity of the target vehicle based on the location information; receiving a running status of the at least one vehicle and the location information from the server in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, and determining relative location information and a relative running status of the at least one nearby vehicle and the target vehicle based on the location information and the running status; receiving second vehicle information of an allocated target vehicle from the server in response to the second driving request; or receiving status data of the target environment from the server in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the status data comprising at least one of meteorological data and light intensity of the first location, or a current status of a first object with a changeable status in the target environment.
Joubert discloses in at least Column 21 Line 37 – Column 22 Line 1 wherein in response to a request for a teleassist session, the remote teleassist system may receive data from a map fusion component, including map data for the area surrounding the autonomous vehicle, and camera feed data [i.e. receiving at least one of the global scene data of the target environment and first scene data from a server in response to the first driving request or the second driving request, the first scene data being the first local scene data].
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 2, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 3, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 4, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert (US 11,938,963 B1) as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Yoneda (US 2018/0181118 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The remote driving method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the second environment image comprises displaying the second environment image on a first split screen of the at least one display, and wherein the remote driving method further comprises: predicting an environmental location of the target vehicle at a next moment based on the current location and a running status of the target vehicle; and displaying a third environment image corresponding to the environmental location of the target vehicle at the next moment on a second split screen of the at least one display.
Joubert does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a predicted environmental location at a next moment is displayed.
However Yoneda teaches in at least Paragraphs 0127 – 0134 wherein an output screen may display current positions of obstacles and the own vehicle in an environment, as well as predicted positions of each of the aforementioned vehicles after a certain period of time has passed based on vehicle travel information [i.e. predicting an environmental location of the target vehicle at a next moment based on the current location and a running status of the target vehicle; and displaying a third environment image corresponding to the environmental location of the target vehicle at the next moment on a second split screen of the at least one display].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Joubert by incorporating the prediction of vehicle locations in the future as taught by Yoneda.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Yoneda in at least Paragraphs 0183 & 0184, the safety of the operated vehicle may be improved by supplying a remote operator with predicted position information of the vehicle in the environment after a time delay caused by communication between vehicle and remote system.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 5, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert (US 11,938,963 B1) as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Kiani (US 2021/0197861 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
The remote driving method according to claim 1, further comprising: predicting a location of the target vehicle at a current moment based on the target environment and acquired running status information of the target vehicle, to obtain a predicted location; acquiring, based on the predicted location, second local scene data, corresponding to the predicted location, in the global scene data, and acquiring first status data of at least a partial environment corresponding to the predicted location; and performing rendering based on the second local scene data and the first status data that correspond to the predicted location, to obtain rendered image data corresponding to the predicted location.
Joubert does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a scene is rendered based on a predicted location, however discloses in at least Column Column 21 Lines 3 – 36 wherein a map fusion component is configured to integrate or fuse static elements of an environment by an offline map system with various observations currently detected in the environment by a perception component in order to generate a representation of the vehicle environment [i.e. performing rendering based on the second local scene data and the first status data that correspond to the predicted location, to obtain rendered image data corresponding to the predicted location].
However Kiani teaches in at least Paragraphs 0120 & 0121 wherein a prediction engine may determine a likely position of objects in an environment based on historic tracks, and perform fusion on the new data and historical tracking data to obtain combined tracking data [i.e. predicting a location of the target vehicle at a current moment based on the target environment and acquired running status information of the target vehicle, to obtain a predicted location; acquiring, based on the predicted location, second local scene data, corresponding to the predicted location, in the global scene data, and acquiring first status data of at least a partial environment corresponding to the predicted location].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Joubert by incorporating the fusion of past and current data for vehicle surroundings for use by a teleoperator as taught by Kiani.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kiani in at least Paragraph 0132, fusion of the tracking data with map data allows for increased certainty as to direction, speed and likely behavior, improving the assessment of surroundings by a teleoperator.
Regarding Claim 7:
The remote driving method according to claim 6, wherein the displaying the second environment image comprises: displaying, via the at least one display, the second environment image based on the rendered image data corresponding to the predicted location if the predicted location is matched with the current location acquired from the target vehicle; and acquiring third local scene data and second status data that correspond to the current location if a current environmental location is not matched with the current location, and performing rendering based on the third local scene data and the second status data, to obtain the second environment image.
Joubert does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a scene is rendered based on a predicted location, however discloses in at least Column 21 Lines 3 – 36 wherein a map fusion component is configured to integrate or fuse static elements of an environment by an offline map system with various observations currently detected in the environment by a perception component in order to generate a representation of the vehicle environment [i.e. performing rendering to obtain rendered image data corresponding to the predicted location].
However Kiani teaches in at least Paragraphs 0120 & 0121 wherein a prediction engine may determine a likely position of objects in an environment based on historic tracks, and perform fusion on the new data and historical tracking data to obtain combined tracking data. At least Paragraphs 0123. 0127, & 0128 of Kiani further teaches wherein the fusion takes place based on a matching state of tracks, such that tracking data and present data is only combined in the event that a matching criteria is fulfilled, with only the detected position being used in the fusion otherwise [i.e. displaying the second environment image based on the rendered image data corresponding to the predicted location if the predicted location is matched with the current location acquired from the target vehicle; and acquiring third local scene data and second status data that correspond to the current location if a current environmental location is not matched with the current location, and performing rendering based on the third local scene data and the second status data, to obtain the second environment image].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Joubert by incorporating the determination of information to fuse based on matching of new data to previous tracks as taught by Kiani.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kiani in at least Paragraph 0132, fusion of the tracking data with map data allows for increased certainty as to direction, speed and likely behavior, with matching ensuring that the track positions are accurate, improving the assessment of surroundings by a teleoperator.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 6, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 7, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 10, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert (US 11,938,963 B1) as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Leon (US 2021/0407285 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The remote driving method according to claim 1, wherein the target vehicle is one from among a plurality of controlled vehicles controlled by the remote driving entity, and wherein the remote driving method further comprises: acquiring first location information of a non-controlled object in the target environment and second location information of a nearby controlled vehicle in a vicinity of the target vehicle; collecting road condition information of a surrounding environment of the target vehicle based on the first location information and the second location information; displaying, via the at least one display, prompt information based on the road condition information of the target vehicle satisfying a preset condition, wherein the prompt information indicates an autonomous driving condition is satisfied; and activating an autonomous driving function of the target vehicle based on receiving an autonomous driving activation operation corresponding to the target vehicle.
Joubert does not appear to specifically disclose wherein autonomous driving in a vehicle is selectively activated based on vehicle location and road condition information.
However Leon teaches in at least Paragraphs 0037 & 0069 wherein a road controller may be configured to join vehicles in a platoon based on a traffic situation, such as traffic congestion, with the vehicle entering a largely autonomous driving mode when entering a platoon [i.e. collecting road condition information of a surrounding environment of the target vehicle based on the first location information and the second location information; displaying, via the at least one display, prompt information based on the road condition information of the target vehicle satisfying a preset condition, wherein the prompt information indicates an autonomous driving condition is satisfied; and activating an autonomous driving function of the target vehicle based on receiving an autonomous driving activation operation corresponding to the target vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0035 & 0045 of Leon further teaches wherein vehicles report their location to a road controller which controls the platooning operation [i.e. acquiring first location information of a non-controlled object in the target environment and second location information of a nearby controlled vehicle in a vicinity of the target vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Joubert by incorporating the autonomous joining of vehicle platoons by vehicles based on traffic conditions as taught by Leon.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Leon in at least Paragraph 0065, by controlling vehicles in autonomous modes based on assessed traffic conditions, more consistent traffic flow may be achieved, improving the flow of vehicles along a roadway.
Regarding Claim 10:
The remote driving method according to claim 9, wherein the preset condition is based on at least one of a determined degree of traffic congestion, a determined traffic flow volume, or a determined traffic flow speed.
Joubert does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the preset condition is based on at least one of a determined degree of traffic congestion, a determined traffic flow volume, or a determined traffic flow speed.
However Leon teaches in at least Paragraphs 0037 & 0069 wherein a road controller may be configured to join vehicles in a platoon based on a traffic situation, such as traffic congestion [i.e. the preset condition is a determined degree of traffic congestion].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Joubert by incorporating the autonomous joining of vehicle platoons by vehicles based on traffic congestion as taught by Leon.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Leon in at least Paragraph 0065, by controlling vehicles in autonomous modes based on assessed traffic conditions, more consistent traffic flow may be achieved, improving the flow of vehicles along a roadway.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 9, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Murata (US 2023/0057848 A1): Murata recites a remote operation device for a vehicle, including the capture of images in the surroundings of the vehicle, and displaying the images to a remote operator. The remote operator may control the vehicle based on the received images of the surroundings.
Summer (US 2015/0120048 A1): Summer recites a robotic system, including the remote operation of the robot at a control console. To account for latency when receiving movement commands, a current pose of the robot is compared to a pose when the command was issued, and the command is adapted to account for the difference in pose.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights