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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19, 22-23, 25, and 29-36 are currently pending.
3. Claims 35-36 are new.
4. Claims 2, 6, 9, 12, 18, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 are canceled.
5. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 19, 22-23, 25, 30, 32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 20210116907 A1) in view of Zheng (US 20190187700 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Altman teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: while a vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode within a real-world environment, and during a first period of time when a current scenario being faced by the vehicle is not determined to be associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future, causing a safety driver that is remote from the vehicle to be presented with a set of baseline information regarding the operation of the vehicle but not any scenario-based information that is specifically associated with a type of scenario being faced by the vehicle; while the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle is being presented with the set of baseline information, obtaining data that is indicative of a type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle (Altman: [0059]);
Determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future (Altman: [0027] and [0059]);
In response to determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future: determining a set of scenario-based information to be presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle, wherein the determined set of scenario-based information includes at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, and wherein the determined set of scenario-based information includes at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information currently being presented (Altman: [0056]);
And modifying an extent of information being presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle so as to begin selectively presenting, to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle, the determined set of scenario-based information in addition to the set of baseline information currently being presented (Altman: [0056]),
Wherein the determined set of scenario-based information facilitates a task of the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle (Altman: [0027] and [0060]);
And during a second period of time that begins after determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future, causing the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle to be presented with both (i) the set of baseline information and (ii) the determined set of scenario-based information (Altman: [0051], [0056], and [0080]).
Altman fails to explicitly teach based on the obtained data, determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises a given predefined scenario type that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches based on the obtained data, determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises a given predefined scenario type that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk; and based on determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises the given predefined scenario type, determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future (Zheng: [0050], [0069], and [0107]).
Altman and Zheng are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman to incorporate the teachings of Zheng to determine the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk because it provides the benefit of improved safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings when the vehicle is in difficult scenarios. Zheng teaches that not all scenarios are safe for autonomous vehicle control and need to switch to manual mode to maintain the safety of the vehicle.
11. Regarding Claim 4, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Zheng teaches the obtained data further indicates an urgency level of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the urgency level of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle (Zheng: [0107]).
12. Regarding Claim 11, Altman teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon that are executable by at least one processor such that a computing system is capable of (Altman: [0189]):
While a vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode within a real-world environment, and during a first period of time when a current scenario being faced by the vehicle is not determined to be associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future, causing a safety driver that is remote from the vehicle to be presented with a set of baseline information regarding the operation of the vehicle but not any scenario-based information that is specifically associated with a type of scenario being faced by the vehicle; while the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle is being presented with the set of baseline information, obtaining data that is indicative of a type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle (Altman: [0059]);
Determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future (Altman: [0027] and [0059]);
In response to determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future: determining a set of scenario-based information to be presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle, wherein the determined set of scenario-based information includes at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, and wherein the determined set of scenario-based information includes at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information currently being presented (Altman: [0056]);
And modifying an extent of information being presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle so as to begin selectively presenting, to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle, the determined set of scenario-based information in addition to the set of baseline information currently being presented (Altman: [0056]),
Wherein the determined set of scenario-based information facilitates a task of the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle (Altman: [0027] and [0060]);
And during a second period of time that begins after determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future, causing the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle to be presented with both (i) the set of baseline information and (ii) the determined set of scenario-based information (Altman: [0051], [0056], and [0080]).
Altman fails to explicitly teach based on the obtained data, determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises a given predefined scenario type that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches based on the obtained data, determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises a given predefined scenario type that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk; and based on determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises the given predefined scenario type, determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future (Zheng: [0050], [0069], and [0107]).
Altman and Zheng are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman to incorporate the teachings of Zheng to determine the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk because it provides the benefit of improved safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings when the vehicle is in difficult scenarios. Zheng teaches that not all scenarios are safe for autonomous vehicle control and need to switch to manual mode to maintain the safety of the vehicle.
13. Regarding Claim 14, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Zheng teaches the obtained data further indicates an urgency level of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the urgency level of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle (Zheng: [0107]).
14. Regarding Claim 19, Altman teaches an on-board computing system of a vehicle, the on-board computing system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; program instructions stored on at least one the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the on-board computing system is capable of (Altman: [0189]):
While a vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode within a real-world environment, and during a first period of time when a current scenario being faced by the vehicle is not determined to be associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future, causing a safety driver that is remote from the vehicle to be presented with a set of baseline information regarding the operation of the vehicle but not any scenario-based information that is specifically associated with a type of scenario being faced by the vehicle; while the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle is being presented with the set of baseline information, obtaining data that is indicative of a type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle (Altman: [0059]);
Determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future (Altman: [0027] and [0059]);
In response to determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future: determining a set of scenario-based information to be presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle, wherein the determined set of scenario-based information includes at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, and wherein the determined set of scenario-based information includes at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information currently being presented (Altman: [0056]);
And modifying an extent of information being presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle so as to begin selectively presenting, to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle, the determined set of scenario-based information in addition to the set of baseline information currently being presented (Altman: [0056]),
Wherein the determined set of scenario-based information facilitates a task of the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle (Altman: [0027] and [0060]);
And during a second period of time that begins after determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future, causing the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle to be presented with both (i) the set of baseline information and (ii) the determined set of scenario-based information (Altman: [0051], [0056], and [0080]).
Altman fails to explicitly teach based on the obtained data, determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises a given predefined scenario type that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches based on the obtained data, determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises a given predefined scenario type that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk; and based on determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises the given predefined scenario type, determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with an increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in the foreseeable future (Zheng: [0050], [0069], and [0107]).
Altman and Zheng are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman to incorporate the teachings of Zheng to determine the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle that is selected from a plurality of predefined scenario types categorized as presenting increased risk because it provides the benefit of improved safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings when the vehicle is in difficult scenarios. Zheng teaches that not all scenarios are safe for autonomous vehicle control and need to switch to manual mode to maintain the safety of the vehicle.
15. Regarding Claim 22, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Zheng teaches determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises the given predefined scenario type using a machine learning model that is configured to receive sensor data captured by the vehicle and determine, based on at least the received sensor data, whether the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises any one or more of the plurality of predefined scenario types (Zheng: [0067] and [0069]).
16. Regarding Claim 23, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 22, and further, Zhang teaches the machine learning model is trained using a plurality of historical input datasets that each corresponds to a respective predefined scenario type of the plurality of predefined scenario types (Zhang: [0046], [0050], and [0070]).
17. Regarding Claim 25, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Zheng teaches determining that the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises the given predefined scenario type using a machine learning model that is configured to receive sensor data captured by the vehicle and determine, based on at least the received sensor data, whether the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle comprises any one or more of the plurality of predefined scenario types (Zheng: [0067] and [0069]).
18. Regarding Claim 30, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Altman teaches the at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type comprises information regarding one or more types of objects that are involved in the given predefined scenario type (Altman: [0056]).
19. Regarding Claim 32, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Zheng teaches in addition to the at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, the set of scenario-based information also includes information that is based on an urgency level of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle (Zheng: [0107]).
20. Regarding Claim 34, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Altman teaches the set of baseline information includes a visual representation of the vehicle's surrounding environment (Altman: [0056]).
21. Regarding Claim 35, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Zheng teaches utilizing the given predefined scenario type that is determined to be the type of the current scenario being faced by the vehicle as a basis for selecting threshold criteria that is to be utilized to evaluate one or more other variables that characterize the current scenario being faced by vehicle (Zheng: [0048], [0050], and [0069]);
Evaluating whether the selected threshold criteria is satisfied by the one or more other variables that characterize the current scenario being faced by vehicle (Zheng: [0050]);
And based on the evaluating, determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk that the vehicle will need to be switched from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future (Zheng: [0051] and [0107]).
22. Regarding Claim 36, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Altman teaches selecting the information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type and is to be included in the set of scenario-based information to be presented to the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle based on (i) predefined data indicating which pieces of information are specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type and (ii) a level of risk indicated by one or more other variables that characterize the current scenario being faced by vehicle (Altman: [0056]).
23. Claims 3, 13, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 20210116907 A1), in view of Zheng (US 20190187700 A1), and in further view of Gordon (US 9481367 B1).
24. Regarding Claim 3, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach the obtained data further indicates a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gordon teaches the obtained data further indicates a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future (Gordon: [Column 8, Lines 19-27]).
Altman, Zheng, and Gordon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Gordon to indicate a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object based on the obtained data because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the passengers in the vehicle to avoid collisions.
25. Regarding Claim 13, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach the obtained data further indicates a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gordon teaches the obtained data further indicates a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future (Gordon: [Column 8, Lines 19-27]).
Altman, Zheng, and Gordon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Gordon to indicate a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object based on the obtained data because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the passengers in the vehicle to avoid collisions.
26. Regarding Claim 31, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach in addition to the at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, the set of scenario-based information also includes information that is based on a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gordon teaches in addition to the at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, the set of scenario-based information also includes information that is based on a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object in the real-world environment in the foreseeable future (Gordon: [Column 8, Lines 19-27]).
Altman, Zheng, and Gordon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Gordon to include data that indicates a likelihood of the vehicle making physical contact with another object based on the obtained data because it provides the benefit of providing additional information for increasing awareness for the operator to avoid collisions.
27. Claims 5, 15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 20210116907 A1), in view of Zheng (US 20190187700 A1), and in further view of Lui (US 20200012277 A1).
28. Regarding Claim 5, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach the obtained data further indicates a likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lui teaches the obtained data further indicates a likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future (Lui: [0010], [0058], and [0061]).
Altman, Zheng, and Lui are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Lui to determine the likelihood of a safety driver switching from autonomous mode to manual mode by determining if a value satisfies a threshold condition because it provides the benefit of improving safety of autonomous and manual vehicle control and reduce vehicle accidents, which provides the additional benefit of increased safety of the passengers, surroundings, and vehicles.
29. Regarding Claim 15, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach the obtained data further indicates a likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lui teaches the obtained data further indicates a likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future; and the determining that the current scenario being faced by the vehicle is associated with the increased risk is further based on the obtained data indicating the likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future (Lui: [0010], [0058], and [0061]).
Altman, Zheng, and Lui are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Lui to determine the likelihood of a safety driver switching from autonomous mode to manual mode by determining if a value satisfies a threshold condition because it provides the benefit of improving safety of autonomous and manual vehicle control and reduce vehicle accidents, which provides the additional benefit of increased safety of the passengers, surroundings, and vehicles.
30. Regarding Claim 33, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach in addition to the at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, the set of scenario-based information also includes information that is based on a likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lui teaches in addition to the at least some information that is specifically associated with the given predefined scenario type, the set of scenario-based information also includes information that is based on a likelihood that the safety driver that is remote from the vehicle will decide to switch the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode in the foreseeable future (Lui: [0010], [0058], and [0061]).
Altman, Zheng, and Lui are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Lui to include data that indicates a likelihood of a safety driver switching from autonomous mode to manual mode by determining if a value satisfies a threshold condition because it provides the benefit of providing additional information for improving safety of autonomous and manual vehicle control and reduce vehicle accidents, which provides the additional benefit of increased safety of the passengers, surroundings, and vehicles.
31. Claims 7-8, 10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 20210116907 A1), in view of Zheng (US 20190187700 A1), and in further view of Litkouhi (US 20190346841 A1).
32. Regarding Claim 7, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a bounding box and a predicted future trajectory for at least one other object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi teaches within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a bounding box and a predicted future trajectory for at least one other object (Litkouhi: [0042] and [0062]).
Altman, Zheng, and Litkouhi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Litkouhi for a bounding box and predicted future trajectory of another object to be included in the information that is not the baseline information because it provides the benefit of only sending the highest priority information to the remote operator to save available bandwidth.
33. Regarding Claim 8, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a stop fence for the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi teaches within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a stop fence for the vehicle (Litkouhi: [0042] and [0062] Note that the stop fence is broadly interpreted as an object for the host vehicle to avoid.).
Altman, Zheng, and Litkouhi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Litkouhi for a stop fence to be included in the information that is not the baseline information because it provides the benefit of only sending the highest priority information to the remote operator to save available bandwidth.
34. Regarding Claim 10, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach the set of baseline information comprises a planned trajectory of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi teaches the set of baseline information comprises a planned trajectory of the vehicle (Litkouhi: [0040] Note that the planned trajectory of the vehicle is equivalent to the information relating the current path of the vehicle.).
Altman, Zheng, and Litkouhi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Litkouhi for a planned trajectory of the vehicle to be included in the baseline information because it provides the benefit of only sending the highest priority information to the remote operator to save available bandwidth. The remote operator is able to control the vehicle on the path based on the useful information.
35. Regarding Claim 16, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a bounding box and a predicted future trajectory for at least one other object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi teaches within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a bounding box and a predicted future trajectory for at least one other object (Litkouhi: [0042] and [0062]).
Altman, Zheng, and Litkouhi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Litkouhi for a bounding box and predicted future trajectory of another object to be included in the information that is not the baseline information because it provides the benefit of only sending the highest priority information to the remote operator to save available bandwidth.
36. Regarding Claim 17, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a stop fence for the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi teaches within the determined set of scenario-based information, the at least one type of information that is not included in the set of baseline information comprises a stop fence for the vehicle (Litkouhi: [0042] and [0062] Note that the stop fence is broadly interpreted as an object for the host vehicle to avoid.).
Altman, Zheng, and Litkouhi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Litkouhi for a stop fence to be included in the information that is not the baseline information because it provides the benefit of only sending the highest priority information to the remote operator to save available bandwidth.
37. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 20210116907 A1), in view of Zheng (US 20190187700 A1), and in further view of Bohl (US 20200211553 A1).
38. Regarding Claim 29, Altman and Zheng remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Altman and Zheng fail to explicitly teach providing a passenger of the vehicle with a virtual assistant that engages in natural language communications with the passenger.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bohl teaches providing a passenger of the vehicle with a virtual assistant that engages in natural language communications with the passenger (Bohl: [0025] and [0029]).
Altman, Zheng, and Bohl are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of remote vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Altman and Zheng to incorporate the teachings of Bohl to include a virtual assistant that engages in natural language communication with the passenger because it provides the benefit of notifying a passenger of the vehicle about the certain conditions being faced by the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
39. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19, 22-23, 25, and 29-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Altman (US 20210116907 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of a first time period when the vehicle presents a set of baseline information regarding operation of the vehicle, but not any scenario-based information and a second time period, after an increased risk associated with the vehicle, to present both the baseline information in addition to the scenario-based information in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0056] and [0059]. Altman teaches transmit a diluted set of information to the remote operator to provide information relevant information so they can be ready to take control at any time. When the remote operator takes control of the vehicle, additional data (e.g., compressed video) is also sent in additional to the relevant sensory data.
40. The cited references in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
41. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19, 22-23, 25, and 29-34 remain rejected and Claims 35-36 are newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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 T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663