DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-17 and 19-22 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 13-17, 19, and 22 are amended. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, and 21 are as previously presented. Claims 2, 12, and 18 are cancelled. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 10/7/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/7/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 7 under the heading “Claim Objections”), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 7-8 under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 8 under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 103”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2011/0238292A1 (Bresnahan et al.) and JP2001141493A (Kawamoto) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2015/0338849A1 (Nemec et al.).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 15, “stop the when” should instead read “stop the vehicle when”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 17, and 22, the claims recite “wherein the plurality of stages comprise a first stage based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and a distance from the pickup location, and a second stage based on the current location of the autonomous vehicle and a distance to the destination location.” The disclosure as originally filed (e.g. Figure 13 and specification ¶0082) describes the stages as being defined by the particular pickup or destination location and distances to markers. There does not appear to be a description that the stages themselves are based on the current location of the autonomous vehicle.
While the particular stage which the autonomous vehicle occupies at any given time will be dependent on its current position, the configuration of the stage does not appear to change or be dependent upon where the vehicle is, and the limitation in question narrows the stages, as opposed to narrowing the determination of which stage the vehicle falls within.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-8, 10, 11, 13-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 (for Claims 3-8), Claim 9 (for Claims 10, 11, and 13-16), or Claim 17 (for Claims 19-21) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 3, 13, and 19, the claims recite “wherein the vehicle pulls over at the current location of the vehicle when the vehicle is between the first stage and the second stage.” The independent claims only recite two stages. The disclosure as originally filed (e.g. specification ¶0101) states that the route may be divided into “two or more” stages. In other words, for the case of a route being only two stages (which appears to be the case recited in the Independent Claims), Claims 3, 13, and 19 are reciting a case where the vehicle is exactly at the threshold point/distance between two adjacent stages. The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to describe the determination of such a case and does not appear to describe the resulting control outcome of how to pull over the vehicle in such a case. Although the disclosure considers a “middle stage” between two other stages, this does not appear to be the case claimed, and the claim language is broad enough to encompass subject matter which was not supported in the written description. Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 3-11, 13-17 and 19-22 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 17, and 22, the issues under 112(a) also render the claims indefinite. In view of the specification, the stages appear to be completely defined by the pickup location or destination location and the associated distance. It is not clear how the stages are further based on the current location of the autonomous vehicle, and whether this means that the stages are dynamic over time, or are defined by recorded positions of the vehicle, or something else. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the stages are interpreted as being based on the pickup location or destination location and the associated distance and not the current vehicle position.
Claims 3-8, 10, 11, 13-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 (for Claims 3-8), Claim 9 (for Claims 10, 11, and 13-16), or Claim 17 (for Claims 19-21) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 3, 13, and 19, the issues under 112(a) also render the claims indefinite. It is not clear whether the claims should be interpreted as describing a case with three or more stages, where “between the first stage and the second stage” recites a middle stage, or whether the claims should be interpreted as describing a point where the vehicle is exactly between two adjacent stages, or something else. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as including a middle stage between the first and second stage, which is the case when the vehicle is between the first stage and the second stage.
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, 3-11, 13-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2011/0238292A1 (Bresnahan et al.) in view of Publication US2015/0338849A1 (Nemec et al.), further in view of Publication JP2001141493A (Kawamoto) (English description relied on for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Bresnahan et al. discloses a method (see Figure 5), comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a vehicle (see Figure 1, [0016, 0017, 0035]), a pull over request (see [0035] step 500 request for emergency stop) as the vehicle maneuvers along a route from an origin location towards a destination location (see [0034, 0035] as part of navigation [0019] “route from an origin to a destination”);
in response to receiving the pull over request, determining, by the one or more processors, which stage of a plurality of stages of the route that a current location of the vehicle falls within (see [0037] step 502, “obtains the road segment ID 304(1) of the road segment on which the vehicle is currently traveling”), wherein the plurality of stages comprise a first stage and a second stage (see Figure 2a, [0024] in road network with plural segments); and
providing guidance to stop, by the one or more processors, the vehicle (see [0049] step 512 guidance of maneuvers to emergency stop location) based on the determined stage (see Figure 5 based on 502), wherein the determined stage defines where the vehicle is stopped (see [0040, 0041], stop location based on road segment attribute information).
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle being: an autonomous vehicle,
does not explicitly recite the origin being: a pickup location, and
does not explicitly recite: stopping, by the one or more processors, the vehicle.
However, Nemec et al. teaches a technique in vehicles to deal with an emergency stop (see [0017]),
the vehicle being: an autonomous vehicle (see [0017]),
the origin being: a pickup location (see [0071]), and
stopping, by the one or more processors, the vehicle (see [0089] computer stops vehicle, [0033] autonomous driving).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of stopping a vehicle of Bresnahan et al. to be used with an autonomous vehicle carrying a passenger from a pickup location, as taught by Nemec et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the method to be used with autonomous vehicles and improving user safety (see Nemec et al., [0003, 0021]).
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite:
wherein the plurality of stages comprise a first stage based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and a distance from the pickup location, and a second stage based on the current location of the autonomous vehicle and a distance to the destination location.
However, Kawamoto teaches a technique to divide a route into segments (stages) (see [0033] step 20, for route based on [0030-0031] starting position and destination),
wherein the plurality of stages comprise a first stage based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and a distance from the origin (see Figure 4, [0033], start position P01 and 2000m length), and a second stage based on the current location of the autonomous vehicle and a distance to the destination location (see Figure 4, [0033] e.g. to end position PB3E, and particular length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the division of the route into segments of Bresnahan et al. to use stages with distances from origin and destination, as taught by Kawamoto. Such a modification would be the application of a known technique of Kawamoto to a known method of Bresnahan et al., to yield the predictable result of obtaining route segments, and could be performed with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of optimizing segment data size and speed by limiting segments to a certain size, or improving flexibility of route searching by allowing for travel to be started before a final destination is set (see Kawamoto, [0005-0006]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bresnahan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle pulls over at the current location of the vehicle (see [0039] immediate stop defining maximum time or distance, i.e. pull over process starts at current location when request is made).
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite a case when the vehicle is between the first stage and the second stage.
However, Kawamoto teaches the technique as above, which includes a stage:
when the vehicle is between the first stage and the second stage (see Figure 4, any stage other than the first or last).
The motivation to combine Bresnahan et al. and Kawamoto was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Bresnahan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pull over request is initiated by a passenger of the vehicle pressing a button in the vehicle (see [0035] touch screen, via a keypad or via dedicated emergency stop button).
Regarding Claim 5, Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the pull over request is initiated by a client computing device associated with a passenger of the vehicle.
However, Nemec et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the pull over request is initiated by a client computing device associated with a passenger of the vehicle (see [0079] pull over function may also be achieved by… using the application on the passenger's client computing device).
The motivation to combine Bresnahan et al. and Nemec et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Bresnahan et al. discloses providing guidance to maneuver along a route including the plurality of stages (see [0019] route guidance function of navigation, [0037] having segments).
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to maneuver along a route including the plurality of stages.
However, Nemec et al. teaches the technique as above, including:
controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to maneuver along a route (see [0033] autonomous driving system with navigation system [0035] to follow route).
The motivation to combine Bresnahan et al. and Nemec et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Bresnahan et al. discloses wherein the stopping of the vehicle occurs when the current location of the vehicle is within the first stage (see Figure 5, [0037] when the identified segment is the first segment of a route.),
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 6, wherein the first stage corresponds to the vehicle being within a predetermined threshold distance from the pickup location.
However, Kawamoto teaches the technique as above,
wherein the first stage corresponds to the vehicle being within a predetermined threshold distance from the start location (see [0033]).
The motivation to combine Bresnahan et al. and Kawamoto was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Bresnahan et al. discloses wherein the stopping of the vehicle occurs when the current location of the vehicle is within the second stage (see Figure 5, [0037] when the identified segment is the last segment of a route.).
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 6, wherein the second stage corresponds to the vehicle being within a predetermined threshold distance to the destination location.
However, Kawamoto teaches the technique as above,
wherein the second stage corresponds to the vehicle being within a predetermined threshold distance to the destination location (see [0033]).
The motivation to combine Bresnahan et al. and Kawamoto was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9-11, 13-17, 19-22: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1 and 3-8. Claims 9-11 and 13-16 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 1, 4, 5, 3, and 6-8, respectively. Claims 17 and 19-21 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 1 and 3-5, respectively. Claim 22 recites a method including features of Claims 1 and 6. Claims 9-11, 13-17, 19-22 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1 and 3-8 (aside from the positively recited vehicle and memory, disclosed by Bresnahan et al. at [0016, 0019]), and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669