DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-24 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 22 are amended. Claims 4-6, 10, 11, 14, 20, and 21 are as previously presented. Claims 23 and 24 are new. Claims 2, 8, 12, 16, and 18 are cancelled.
This is a non-final rejection in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 4/22/2026. 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4/21/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 7), 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), 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. 8-9), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive.
The arguments on p. 8 state that the amendments to claim 1 are not taught by the prior art of record. However, no reasoned arguments have been provided regarding the specific prior art references. Upon further consideration, the prior art is determined to read on amended Claim 1, and the rejection under 103 is updated in view of the amendments (see complete detail in the rejections below). The arguments and amendments regarding Claims 7, 15, 23, and 24 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 Publication US2012/0078509A1 (Choi), as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2011/0238292A1 (Bresnahan et al.), US2015/0338849A1 (Nemec et al.), and JP2001141493A (Kawamoto).
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 7, 15, 23, and 24 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 7, 15, 23, and 24, the limitation of stopping the vehicle at the pull over spot when the vehicle has identified “a pull over spot” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear whether the identified “pull over spot” is the same one that is stopped at (i.e. the claims should instead read “the pull over spot”) or alternatively whether the identified pull over spot may be some second or different or broader spot as compared to the spot which the vehicle is actually stopped at. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as pulling over to the same spot which has been identified.
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, 3-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 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 a pickup 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”), 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 at least a first stage beyond a threshold distance of the destination location, and a second stage within the threshold distance of 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 at least a first stage beyond a threshold distance of the destination location, and a second stage within the threshold distance of the destination location (see Figure 4, and [0033] route divided into stages of predetermined length. I.e. for any border between two of the stages (which exists at a particular threshold distance), any stage to the left of the border may be the “first stage” beyond the threshold distance, and any stage to the right may be the second stage, within the threshold distance).
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) when the vehicle is in the first stage (see [0037] for the case where the obtained road segment is the first one, and also “the first stage” defined by distance per the combination with Kawamoto in the rejection of Claim 1, above).
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 Claims 9-11, 13, 14, 17, and 19-22: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1 and 3-6. Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 1, 4, 5, 3, and 6, 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, 14, 17, and 19-22 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1 and 3-6 (aside from the positively recited vehicle and memory, disclosed by Bresnahan et al. at [0016, 0019]), and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7, 15, 23, and 24 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), further in view of Publication US2012/0078509A1 (Choi).
Regarding Claim 7, Bresnahan et al. discloses wherein the stopping of the vehicle during the second stage (see [0037] for the case where the obtained road segment is the last one, and also “the second stage” defined by distance per the combination with Kawamoto in the rejection of Claim 1, above) comprises stopping the vehicle at the pull over spot when the vehicle has identified a pull over spot (see [0049] step 512 guidance of maneuvers to emergency stop location [0041] identified at step 508. Examiner’s note: any stop location during the last segment could be considered the pull over spot “for the destination location”).
Bresnahan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the stopping of the vehicle during the second stage comprises stopping the vehicle at the current location when the vehicle has not identified a pull over spot for the destination location.
However, Choi teaches a technique to implement an emergency stop (see Figure 5, [0076] routing to safe area in response to unsafe condition, [0039] safe area being an area to stop), comprising:
stopping the vehicle at the current location when the vehicle has not identified a pull over spot for the destination location (see [0105] when control system “not able to find a safe area” instruct to pull over to the roadside corresponding to current location, and Examiner’s note: any stop location during the last segment could be considered the pull over spot “for the destination location”).
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 stopping at an identified emergency stop location in Bresnahan et al. to further include a provision for stopping when a pull over spot has not been identified as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to provide for additional situations and improving safety in a plurality of environments (see Choi, [0006, 0105]).
Regarding Claims 15, 23, and 24: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 7. Claim 15 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 7. Claim 23 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 7. Claim 22 recites a method including features of Claim 7. Claims 15, 23, and 24 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 7 (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
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
Prosecution Insights