DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 09/30/2025 in which claims 1-14 and 19-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to add sufficient structure to the generic placeholder. Accordingly, the claims are no longer subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 19-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, these claims recite the limitation “automatically determine whether door opening or closing and re-start are required in a situation that an occupant gets on or off the autonomous vehicle.” This limitation is indefinite because it contains two different interpretations. For example, this limitation could include determining whether at least one of door opening or closing is required, in addition to determining whether re-start is required. Alternatively, this limitation could be interpreted as determining whether either only door opening is required (i.e., no re-start required), or whether the combination of door closing and re-start is required.
Claims 2-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to rejected claims 1 and 19, as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0005032 A1 (hereinafter Urano), in view of Konchan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0390485 A1 (hereinafter Konchan), and further in view of Kidena et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0145150 A1 (hereinafter Kidena).
Regarding claim 1, Urano discloses an autonomous vehicle (Urano Fig. 1) comprising:
an autonomous driving control apparatus (see at least Urano autonomous driving module 160) comprising:
a communication device including a transceiver and configured to communicate with a control system (see at least Urano [0022]: “The processor(s) 110 may control the functioning of the vehicle 11 based on inputs and/or information received from any of communication interfaces 16”; [0084]: “When used in a wireless telecommunications network, the vehicle processor(s) 110 and/or vehicle modules may include (or be operatively connected to) one or more transceivers”);
and a processor (see at least Urano [0013]: “The control system includes one or more processors and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors.”) configured to:
automatically determine whether door opening or closing and re-start are required in a situation that an occupant gets on or off the autonomous vehicle (see at least Urano [0123]: “If the cargo area operation control setting is TS=6, the cargo area door control module 71 may (in block 568) wait until an occupant is detected exiting the vehicle. When it is determined that an occupant has exited the vehicle, the conditions for unlocking and opening of the cargo area door(s) under TS=6 will have occurred (i.e., the presence of cargo in a cargo area, arrival of the vehicle at a selected destination, and the detection of a vehicle occupant exiting the vehicle).”; [0133]: “Returning to block 737 (FIG. 4C), if the cargo area door is closed and locked, the cargo area door control module 71 may (in block 739) control operation of the vehicle to permit the vehicle to start moving.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation re-start includes resuming driving of the vehicle after the vehicle has been stopped; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one of door opening or door closing since the claim language uses “or” when listing claim limitations),
and request remote control to the control system through the communication device when an operation depending on an automatic determination result thereof is impossible or the automatic determination is impossible (see at least Urano [105]: “TS=10 (the cargo area doors may be operated (i.e., unlocked, opened, closed, and/or locked) responsive to a direct command from a remote entity. In the particular example shown herein, responsive to generation or receipt of an instruction which will cause the vehicle to start moving, cargo area door control module 71 may determine if all vehicle cargo area doors are closed. If at least one cargo area door is not closed, the cargo area door control module 71 may generate a message to a remote entity (e.g., a remote user, operator or computing system) that at least one cargo area door is not closed. The cargo area door control module 71 may then receive (for example, from the at least one communications interface 16), responsive to the message to the remote entity that at least one cargo area door is not closed, a direct command to close the at least one cargo area door.”; Urano teaches at least an operation depending on an automatic determination result thereof is impossible because it is determined that all cargo doors are not closed before the remote control request; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
Urano fails to expressly disclose requesting remote control for door opening to the control system when a state in which it is impossible to determine whether a door opening control is possible and a state in which it is impossible to determine whether a door is opening continues for more than a predetermined time. However, Konchan teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to request remote control for door opening to the control system when a state in which it is impossible to determine whether a door opening control is possible (see at least Konchan [0048]: “It may be assumed that if an occupant fails to move the door 24 from the unopened position into the opened position within the maximum delay time, and after actuating the interior door handle 30, that the occupant is for some reason unable to open the door 24.”; [0041]: “The onboard communication device 46 may be activated by the vehicle lock controller 38 to contact the service provider located remote from the vehicle 20, to request assistance.”)
and a state in which it is impossible to determine whether a door is opening continues for more than a predetermined time in a situation where the autonomous vehicle stops at a stop and the door needs to be opened (see at least Konchan [0057]: “In some embodiments, after the vehicle lock controller 38 contacts the remote service provider, generally indicated at 224, the vehicle lock controller 38 resets a double door lock timer to a time of zero and then starts the double door lock timer to measure an elapsed time period since contact was made with the remote service provider, generally indicated at 226.”; [0046]: “If the vehicle lock controller 38 determines that the double door lock feature 36 is active, the method 200 proceeds to 208. At 208, the vehicle lock controller 38 resets an opening attempt timer to a time of zero, and then starts the opening attempt timer to measure an elapsed time period since movement of the interior door handle 30 was sensed.”; Konchan [0055] teaches the autonomous vehicle stops at a stop and the door needs to be opened because the occupant is attempting to exit the vehicle)
wherein the state in which it is impossible to determine whether the door opening control is possible and the state in which it is impossible to determine whether the door is opening include at least one of a sensor occlusion or a communication error (see at least Konchan [0055]: “If the vehicle lock controller 38 senses and/or determines that the double door lock feature 36 remains in the active state, generally indicated at 216, or if the vehicle lock controller 38 determines that the value of the instruction counter is greater than or equal to the first counter value, generally indicated at 222, the method 200 proceeds to 224. At 224, the vehicle lock controller 38 automatically contacts a service provider. The vehicle lock controller 38 may contact the remote service provider with the onboard communication device 46 of the vehicle 20, to request assistance in opening or unlocking the door 24 of the vehicle 20… Alternatively, after initiating contact with the remote service provider such that the remote service provider may verify the identity of the occupant, the remote service provider may signal the vehicle lock controller 38 from a remote location to move the door lock system 34 from the locked state into the unlocked state and to signal the vehicle lock controller 38 to deactivate the double door lock feature 36 to allow the occupant to open the door 24.”; Konchan teaches at least the state in which it is impossible to determine whether the door opening control is possible includes communication error because the double door lock feature operates using control signals and needs to be deactivated to allow door opening)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano with the communication error taught by Konchan with reasonable expectation of success. Konchan is directed towards the related field of controlling a vehicle door lock system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano with Konchan to determine if remote assistance is required to open a vehicle door. (see at least Konchan [0055]: “At 224, the vehicle lock controller 38 automatically contacts a service provider. The vehicle lock controller 38 may contact the remote service provider with the onboard communication device 46 of the vehicle 20, to request assistance in opening or unlocking the door 24 of the vehicle 20.”).
Urano in view of Konchan fail to expressly disclose the communication error including some or all of the information necessary to determine whether the door is opened is not received. However, Kidena teaches
and wherein the communication error includes a situation where some or all of information necessary to determine whether the door is opened is not received (see at least Kidena [0039]: “In a case where one or more of the side inter-vehicle distance t, the door lengths L and La, and the opening degree θa cannot be calculated or acquired due to a communication error with respect to the adjacent vehicle 1A, the absence of information, or the like, the cloud server CS transmits a signal indicating that information transmission is impossible to the vehicle opening-closing body control device 20.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation information necessary to determine whether the door is opened includes a door opening degree).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan with Kidena with reasonable expectation of success. Kidena is directed towards the related field of a vehicle opening-closing body control device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan with Kidena so a vehicle door can be appropriately opened (see at least Kidena [0060]: “According to the method of the aspect of this disclosure, when the vehicle is parked in the registered parking area, the opening-closing body can be appropriately opened by the drive unit, with contact with obstacles suppressed, in accordance with an opening operation from a user.”).
Regarding claim 2, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether a door needs to be opened based on surrounding situation information when the autonomous vehicle arrives at a stop (see at least Urano [0123]: “If the cargo area operation control setting is TS=6, the cargo area door control module 71 may (in block 568) wait until an occupant is detected exiting the vehicle. When it is determined that an occupant has exited the vehicle, the conditions for unlocking and opening of the cargo area door(s) under TS=6 will have occurred (i.e., the presence of cargo in a cargo area, arrival of the vehicle at a selected destination, and the detection of a vehicle occupant exiting the vehicle).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation surrounding situation information includes an occupant exiting the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether a door needs to be closed when an occupant completely gets on or off the autonomous vehicle after a door of the autonomous vehicle is opened based on vehicle interior information (see at least Urano [0102]: “TS=7 (cargo area door control module 71 may close and lock the cargo area door for any cargo area in which cargo is detected if the door is open, when an occupant has exited an occupant compartment of the vehicle after arriving at the selected destination and the occupant who exited the occupant compartment has moved to at least a predetermined distance from the vehicle).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation vehicle interior information includes a cargo area in which cargo is detected; Urano teaches at least when an occupant completely gets off the autonomous vehicle; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
Regarding claim 5, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Konchan teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
request remote control for door opening to the control system when a state in which it is impossible to perform the door opening continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Konchan [0048]: “It may be assumed that if an occupant fails to move the door 24 from the unopened position into the opened position within the maximum delay time, and after actuating the interior door handle 30, that the occupant is for some reason unable to open the door 24.”; [0041]: “The onboard communication device 46 may be activated by the vehicle lock controller 38 to contact the service provider located remote from the vehicle 20, to request assistance.”).
Regarding claim 9, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit vehicle exterior image data and exterior object detection information to the control system when a situation where there is an obstacle in a space between a door and a stop of the autonomous vehicle continues and a door opening remote control request is required (see at least Urano [0053]: “The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured to receive, and/or determine location information for obstacles within the external environment of the vehicle 11 for use by the processor(s) 110, and/or one or more of the modules described herein”; [0060]: “In another example, a sensor configured to detect objects behind the vehicle may be configured to detect the presence of a person in close proximity to the trunk door, in which case the trunk door may be prevented from opening due to the possibility of the door contacting the person during opening. Multi-purpose and/or dedicated diagnostic sensors 28e such as cameras, weight sensors, proximity sensors, and any other suitable types of sensors may be incorporated into the vehicle 11 and used for diagnostic purposes.”)
or when a situation where a moving object approaches the space between the door and the stop of the autonomous vehicle continues and the door opening remote control request is required (examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a method for the autonomous vehicle of claim 1. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena also discloses the method performed by the autonomous vehicle as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 4, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena, and further in view of Hicok et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0265703 A1 (hereinafter Hicok).
Regarding claim 4, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fails to expressly disclose determining an autonomous vehicle needs to be re-started when an occupant is seated. However, Hicok teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether the autonomous vehicle needs to be re-started when an occupant is seated based on vehicle interior information of the autonomous vehicle after a door of the autonomous vehicle is closed (see at least Hicok [0130]: “Outward facing sensors may track the position of the running person and if that person runs up to the door of the vehicle, the sensors may detect this, and the controller may open the door to allow the person to board the vehicle. Once on board, the interior facing sensors observe the newly boarded passenger and wait until she is seated safely before controlling the vehicle to begin moving.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation re-start includes resuming driving of the vehicle after the vehicle has been stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the determination taught by Hicok with reasonable expectation of success. Hicok is similarly directed towards the related field of autonomous shuttles, buses, taxis, and vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the determination taught by Hicok to improve operation with automated capabilities (see at least Hicok [0026]: “On the other hand, automating such capabilities can provide tremendous advantages in many contexts. Computers never become fatigued or distracted. They can operate day and night and never need sleep. They are always available to give service. With an appropriate sensor suite, they can simultaneously perceive all points outside the vehicle as well as various points within a vehicle passenger compartment. Such computers could allow humans to focus on tasks only humans can do.”).
Regarding claim 12, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena discloses all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fails to expressly disclose transmitting vehicle exterior and stop image data when an occupant is trying to get on a vehicle continuing for more than a predetermined time. However, Hicok teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit vehicle exterior image data and stop image data to the control system when a remote control request is performed in the case where a state in which it is determined that there is an occupant trying to get on it around a door outside the autonomous vehicle continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Hicok [0129]-[0130]: “Similarly, even though the vehicle may have already permitted all passengers to disembark at a particular stop and may have already picked up all passengers who are waiting at the stop, the vehicle may delay moving to the next stop if an additional passenger is running toward the vehicle waving her arms to signal that the vehicle should wait because she wants to get on board. Outward facing sensors may detect the presence, position and change in position of such a potential passenger, and deep learning neural networks or other machine learning may recognize gestures or other movement in order to make a decision for controlling the vehicle to pause and wait to see if the running person in fact wants to board the vehicle. Outward facing sensors may track the position of the running person and if that person runs up to the door of the vehicle, the sensors may detect this, and the controller may open the door to allow the person to board the vehicle.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation stop image data includes outward facing sensors determining the passengers at the stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the data taught by Hicok with reasonable expectation of success. Hicok is similarly directed towards the related field of autonomous shuttles, buses, taxis, and vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the data taught by Hicok to improve operation with automated capabilities (see at least Hicok [0026]: “On the other hand, automating such capabilities can provide tremendous advantages in many contexts. Computers never become fatigued or distracted. They can operate day and night and never need sleep. They are always available to give service. With an appropriate sensor suite, they can simultaneously perceive all points outside the vehicle as well as various points within a vehicle passenger compartment. Such computers could allow humans to focus on tasks only humans can do.”).
Regarding claim 13, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena discloses all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fails to expressly disclose transmitting vehicle interior image and audio data when a standing occupant moves or does not hold a handle. However, Hicok teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit vehicle interior image data and interior audio data to the control system when a remote control request is performed in the case where a situation in which a standing occupant moves or does not hold a handle in an interior of the autonomous vehicle continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Hicok [0129]: “As another example, when a passenger within an automated vehicle stands up and moves closer to the door, inside-facing sensors may be used to detect such movement and change of position, and the controller (based on DNN analysis) may either reach a decision that the passenger intends to get off at the next stop or initiate a prompt querying the passenger orally via a paging system and voice recognition system to ask the passenger “Do you want to get off at the next stop?””; Hicok teaches at least transmitting image and audio data when a standing occupant moves; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the data taught by Hicok with reasonable expectation of success. Hicok is similarly directed towards the related field of autonomous shuttles, buses, taxis, and vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the data taught by Hicok to improve operation with automated capabilities (see at least Hicok [0026]: “On the other hand, automating such capabilities can provide tremendous advantages in many contexts. Computers never become fatigued or distracted. They can operate day and night and never need sleep. They are always available to give service. With an appropriate sensor suite, they can simultaneously perceive all points outside the vehicle as well as various points within a vehicle passenger compartment. Such computers could allow humans to focus on tasks only humans can do.”).
Regarding claim 14, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena discloses all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fails to expressly disclose transmitting vehicle exterior image or information when re-start is impossible due to interference from a second vehicle or object. However, Hicok teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit at least one of exterior image data in a direction toward a second vehicle or object, object detection information, or information related to the second vehicle to the control system when a situation where re-start is impossible due to interference from the second vehicle or object continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Hicok [0136]: “Thus, in such use cases it may be appropriate for the controller to first stop the vehicle, then initiate the flashing light display, then use its sensor suite to detect whether there are any hazards, and only then if all is clear, actuate the door to open to discharge passengers.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation re-start is impossible because the vehicle has to wait to discharge passengers and will not continue operation until the passengers are discharged; Hicok teaches at least object detection information when a situation where re-start is impossible due to interference from the object; under broadest reasonable interpretation re-start includes resuming driving of the vehicle after the vehicle has been stopped; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the data taught by Hicok with reasonable expectation of success. Hicok is similarly directed towards the related field of autonomous shuttles, buses, taxis, and vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the data taught by Hicok to improve operation with automated capabilities (see at least Hicok [0026]: “On the other hand, automating such capabilities can provide tremendous advantages in many contexts. Computers never become fatigued or distracted. They can operate day and night and never need sleep. They are always available to give service. With an appropriate sensor suite, they can simultaneously perceive all points outside the vehicle as well as various points within a vehicle passenger compartment. Such computers could allow humans to focus on tasks only humans can do.”).
Regarding claim 20, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena discloses all elements of the remote control method according to claim 19 as explained above. Urano further discloses wherein the automatically determining comprises:
determining whether a door needs to be opened based on surrounding situation information when the autonomous vehicle arrives at a stop (see at least Urano [0123]: “If the cargo area operation control setting is TS=6, the cargo area door control module 71 may (in block 568) wait until an occupant is detected exiting the vehicle. When it is determined that an occupant has exited the vehicle, the conditions for unlocking and opening of the cargo area door(s) under TS=6 will have occurred (i.e., the presence of cargo in a cargo area, arrival of the vehicle at a selected destination, and the detection of a vehicle occupant exiting the vehicle).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation surrounding situation information includes an occupant exiting the vehicle);
determining whether the door needs to be closed when an occupant completely gets on or off the autonomous vehicle after the door of the autonomous vehicle is opened based on vehicle interior information see at least Urano [0102]: “TS=7 (cargo area door control module 71 may close and lock the cargo area door for any cargo area in which cargo is detected if the door is open, when an occupant has exited an occupant compartment of the vehicle after arriving at the selected destination and the occupant who exited the occupant compartment has moved to at least a predetermined distance from the vehicle).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation vehicle interior information includes a cargo area in which cargo is detected; Urano teaches at least when an occupant completely gets off the autonomous vehicle; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fails to expressly disclose determining an autonomous vehicle needs to be re-started when an occupant is seated. However, Hicok teaches
determining whether the autonomous vehicle needs to be re-started when an occupant is seated based on vehicle interior information of the autonomous vehicle after the door of the autonomous vehicle is closed (see at least Hicok [0130]: “Outward facing sensors may track the position of the running person and if that person runs up to the door of the vehicle, the sensors may detect this, and the controller may open the door to allow the person to board the vehicle. Once on board, the interior facing sensors observe the newly boarded passenger and wait until she is seated safely before controlling the vehicle to begin moving.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation re-start includes resuming driving of the vehicle after the vehicle has been stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the determination taught by Hicok with reasonable expectation of success. Hicok is similarly directed towards the related field of autonomous shuttles, buses, taxis, and vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the determination taught by Hicok to improve operation with automated capabilities (see at least Hicok [0026]: “On the other hand, automating such capabilities can provide tremendous advantages in many contexts. Computers never become fatigued or distracted. They can operate day and night and never need sleep. They are always available to give service. With an appropriate sensor suite, they can simultaneously perceive all points outside the vehicle as well as various points within a vehicle passenger compartment. Such computers could allow humans to focus on tasks only humans can do.”).
Claims 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena, and further in view of Reymann et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0061619 A1 (hereinafter Reymann).
Regarding claim 6, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fail to expressly disclose requesting remote control for door closing. However, Reymann teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
request remote control for door closing to the control system when a state in which it is impossible to perform the door closing continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Reymann [0040]: “For example, the door controller 414 may communicate to the remote driver an indication that one or more doors and/or sets of doors of the vehicle is malfunctioning, such as remaining stuck in the open position or closed position. In other embodiments, the door controller 414 may indicate of status of each of the doors and/or sets of doors to the remote driver. For example, the door controller 414 may inform the remote driver that a particular doo or set of doors is open, while other doors are closed. The door controller 414 may also provide the remote driver the ability to control the opening, closing, an/do other functionality of the doors of the vehicle. For example, the remote driver may remotely open the doors when the vehicle comes to a stop at a boarding position. Just prior to departing, the remote driver may remotely close the doors.”)
or a state in which it is impossible to determine whether a door closing control is possible continues for more than a predetermined time in a situation where the autonomous vehicle stops at a stop, the door is opened, and then the door needs to be closed (examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann with reasonable expectation of success. Reymann is directed towards the related field of remote operation of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann to improve safety and effectiveness of autonomous transportation (see at least Reymann [0016]: “As discussed above, merely automating the driving functions does not enable the operation of a safe and effective autonomous transit system. Rather, full automation is only achievable when critical non-driving functions (such as validating tickets, monitoring passenger behavior, and/or performing functions related to revenue protection, safety, and/or comfort etc.) are also automated. Embodiments of the present invention solve these problems and support removal of human vehicle operators from public transit vehicles while still providing all of the authoritative, safety, and revenue protection benefits of having a member of operational staff on-board.”).
Regarding claim 7, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fail to expressly disclose requesting remote control for re-start to the control system. However, Reymann teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
request remote control for re-start to the control system when a state in which it is impossible to perform the re-start continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Reymann [0021]: “For example, the power module 108 may supply a small amount of power to the communications module 108 and/or the control module 110 that allows the autonomous vehicle 100 to receive a wakeup command from a fleet management system and/or other remote start mechanism. Such a wakeup command may be received using the communications module 106 and may instruct the control module 110 to activate the autonomous vehicle 100, such as by activating an ignition mechanism of the autonomous vehicle 100. This allows a traffic control center to control an autonomous vehicle 100 even when the autonomous vehicle 100 has been parked and turned off.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation re-start includes resuming driving of the vehicle after the vehicle has been stopped).
or a state in which it is impossible to determine whether the re-starting control is possible continues for more than a predetermined time in a situation where the autonomous vehicle stops at a stop and requires the re-start after an occupant completes getting on or off and the door is closed (examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann with reasonable expectation of success. Reymann is directed towards the related field of remote operation of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann to improve safety and effectiveness of autonomous transportation (see at least Reymann [0016]: “As discussed above, merely automating the driving functions does not enable the operation of a safe and effective autonomous transit system. Rather, full automation is only achievable when critical non-driving functions (such as validating tickets, monitoring passenger behavior, and/or performing functions related to revenue protection, safety, and/or comfort etc.) are also automated. Embodiments of the present invention solve these problems and support removal of human vehicle operators from public transit vehicles while still providing all of the authoritative, safety, and revenue protection benefits of having a member of operational staff on-board.”).
Regarding claim 8 Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fail to expressly disclose transmitting vehicle interior image data and interior audio data when a door opening remote control request is required. However, Reymann teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit vehicle interior image data and interior audio data to the control system when a door opening remote control request is required because a situation in which an occupant or a good exists within the autonomous vehicle continues (examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations)
or in the case where the door opening remote control request is required when door jamming is detected during door opening control (see at least Reymann [0040]: “For example, the door controller 414 may communicate to the remote driver an indication that one or more doors and/or sets of doors of the vehicle is malfunctioning, such as remaining stuck in the open position or closed position.”; [0046]: “For example, the driver video link management server 428 may route audio and/or video communications between the remote driver and the main display screen 408 and/or secondary display screens 410 to enable the remote driver to see, communicate, and/or otherwise interact with passengers.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann with reasonable expectation of success. Reymann is directed towards the related field of remote operation of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann to improve safety and effectiveness of autonomous transportation (see at least Reymann [0016]: “As discussed above, merely automating the driving functions does not enable the operation of a safe and effective autonomous transit system. Rather, full automation is only achievable when critical non-driving functions (such as validating tickets, monitoring passenger behavior, and/or performing functions related to revenue protection, safety, and/or comfort etc.) are also automated. Embodiments of the present invention solve these problems and support removal of human vehicle operators from public transit vehicles while still providing all of the authoritative, safety, and revenue protection benefits of having a member of operational staff on-board.”).
Regarding claim 10, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fail to expressly disclose transmitting fault information and fault related video data when a remote control request is required. However, Reymann teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit fault information and fault related video data to the control system when a remote control request is required because a situation in which information necessary for determining at least one of door opening, door closing, and re-start is not received continues for more than a predetermined time (see at least Reymann [0054]: “The driver management system 406 may also include a remote vehicle systems control client 456 and/or a fault and event warning display 458. The remote vehicle systems control client 456 is a user interface that allows the remote driver to control systems on the vehicles remotely, such as the opening and closing of doors, deployment of a wheelchair ramp, broadcasting of warning or information messages, override of the ticket validation system, etc.…The fault and event warning display 458 allows the remote driver to see the incoming warnings and events detected in the field (such as by vehicle fault detection system 426) and react to the warnings and events. The fault and event warning display 458 may be integrated into the remote driver's control system and/or video system so the remote driver can very quickly take control of the situation on a remotely located vehicle with the minimum of keypresses.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation information necessary for determining at least one of door opening, door closing, and re-start is not received continues for more than a predetermined time is taught by Reymann because the remote driver does not need to remotely open or close the doors if the doors have automatically opened or closed as explained in Reymann [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann with reasonable expectation of success. Reymann is directed towards the related field of remote operation of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann to improve safety and effectiveness of autonomous transportation (see at least Reymann [0016]: “As discussed above, merely automating the driving functions does not enable the operation of a safe and effective autonomous transit system. Rather, full automation is only achievable when critical non-driving functions (such as validating tickets, monitoring passenger behavior, and/or performing functions related to revenue protection, safety, and/or comfort etc.) are also automated. Embodiments of the present invention solve these problems and support removal of human vehicle operators from public transit vehicles while still providing all of the authoritative, safety, and revenue protection benefits of having a member of operational staff on-board.”).
Regarding claim 11, Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena teaches all elements of the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena fail to expressly disclose transmitting vehicle interior image data, vehicle exterior image data, and stop image data when a remote control request is required. However, Reymann teaches wherein the processor is further configured to
transmit vehicle interior image data, vehicle exterior image data, and stop image data to the control system when a remote control request is required because it is impossible to determine at least one of door opening, door closing, and re-start due to unknown causes, or a standby state lasts for more than a predetermined time (see at least Reymann [0040]: “For example, the door controller 414 may communicate to the remote driver an indication that one or more doors and/or sets of doors of the vehicle is malfunctioning, such as remaining stuck in the open position or closed position.”; [0046]: “For example, the driver video link management server 428 may route audio and/or video communications between the remote driver and the main display screen 408 and/or secondary display screens 410 to enable the remote driver to see, communicate, and/or otherwise interact with passengers.”; [0027]: “For example, an exterior camera system 112, such as a closed circuit television (CCTV) system may be mounted to and/or within an exterior of the body of the autonomous vehicle 100 such that an area outside of the autonomous vehicle 100 may be monitored. This allows images to be captured of people and objects near an exterior of the autonomous vehicle 100. Such imaging may be used to detect whether there are people near the vehicle 100, a number of people, the mood (aggressiveness/calmness, etc.) of the people, etc. For example, the images may be sent to the remote control system such that the images may be monitored by a remote driver, which may analyze the images.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation stop image data includes cameras determining passengers outside the vehicle, such as at a boarding stop; Reymann teaches at least when it is impossible to determine a door opening; examiner notes it is only required for the reference to disclose at least one limitation when the claim language uses “or” to list claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann with reasonable expectation of success. Reymann is directed towards the related field of remote operation of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Urano in view of Konchan and Kidena with the remote control request taught by Reymann to improve safety and effectiveness of autonomous transportation (see at least Reymann [0016]: “As discussed above, merely automating the driving functions does not enable the operation of a safe and effective autonomous transit system. Rather, full automation is only achiev