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 is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on September 9th, 2025 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, 1-2, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claim 20 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
The applicant states (Amend. 6-7) that the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant states “”notifying the other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode” cannot reasonably be performed mentally”. Notifying another vehicle of a driving mode is mere insignificant extra-solution activity, as supported by the MPEP 2106.05(g), see printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the use of a “”a notification device located on the autonomous vehicle” is merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
The applicant states (Amend. 7-9) that Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) fails to disclose the limitation “present a visual notification to notify the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Geller teaches notifying other vehicles within a threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Geller FIG. 6 and Paragraph 21 “The notification information 110 indicates to the other vehicles (or devices) that the vehicle 101 is currently operating with semi-autonomous or autonomous features. Generally, the notification information 110 is sent or transmitted to vehicles that are behind, to the sides and/or within a predefined range (preferably 25-100 meter range) of the vehicle 101. The notification information 110 can also be sent or transmitted to vehicles and/or devices that are travelling or moving the same or similar direction. In one embodiment, the vehicle 101 may transmit the notification information 110 in rear and side directions 115 and only towards vehicles in these directions 115 and up to a 100 meter range (e.g., vehicles 102, 104 and 106) will receive the notification information 110. The vehicles to the front (e.g., vehicle 103) and the vehicles further away (e.g., vehicle 105, which is greater than 100 meters away) will not receive the notification information 110.” | Paragraph 33 “FIG. 6 is an exemplary method 600 for notifying a third party or a third party device whether a first vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode or a semi-autonomous mode according to an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes receiving, at a first processor, notification information including whether a first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and a description of the first vehicle (step 605). The method also includes transmitting the notification information from a transmitter coupled to the first processor to a receiver coupled to a second processor of a remote device (step 610). The method also includes displaying, using a display screen coupled to the second processor, the notification information including whether the first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and the description of the first vehicle (step 615).”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 20, the claims recite the abstract idea of notifying a second vehicle a travel mode of the first vehicle based on a distance between the first and second vehicle, and mentally “operating the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous mode; determining, based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle, that the other vehicle is within the threshold region; and notify the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode”, where these claims fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitation encompasses mentally notifying a second vehicle a travel mode of the first vehicle based on a distance between the first and second vehicle based off of the information provided by the car’s sensors while traveling, or alternatively, mentally notifying a second vehicle a travel mode of the first vehicle based on a distance between the first and second vehicle based on observations by a human.
For example, a human could mentally and with the aid of pen and paper could notify a second vehicle a travel mode of the first vehicle based on a distance between the first and second vehicle.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of a vehicle sensors, processor, and memory are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
In addition, the limitation “defining a threshold region around the autonomous vehicle; receiving sensor data from at least one vehicle sensor located on the autonomous vehicle; detecting, based on the received sensor data, a presence of another vehicle; determining a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle” constitutes insignificant presolution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff' d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “present a visual notification to notify the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode” is insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.' ” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Notifying another vehicle of a driving mode is mere insignificant extra-solution activity, as supported by the MPEP 2106.05(g), see printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a processor, a sensor, and a memory does not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims 2-7 and 9-19 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant claimed invention, when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-8, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”).
With respect to claim 1, Austin teaches a system, comprising:
a control device associated with an autonomous vehicle configured to travel along a road, and a notification device located on the autonomous vehicle the control device comprising at least one processor configured to perform operations comprising:
operating the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous mode; defining a threshold region around the autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 57 “FIG. 6 is a flowchart depicting the processes 600 followed by the automated vehicle to determine the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. In step S640, subject vehicle 110 sets a detection perimeter 114 at a predetermined radius from the center of the vehicle. The predetermined radius may be in the range of 25 feet to 525 feet (about 1/10 mile) as determined by type of highway, density of traffic, existence of traffic lights, speed limits, and the like, and may be different when the vehicle travels from one location to the next”);
receiving sensor data from at least one vehicle sensor located on the autonomous vehicle; detecting, based on the received sensor data, a presence of another vehicle; determining a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle; determining, based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle, that the other vehicle is within the threshold region (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”); and
the notification device configured to perform operations comprising:
that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 60 “If the vehicle is moving toward a pedestrian, the process moves to step S656, where the total number of vehicles within the perimeter is calculated. At step S658, the ratio of automated to non-automated vehicles and/or percentage of automated vehicles to the total number of vehicles is calculated. At step S660, the ratio or percentage is displayed on the external mode indicator.”).
Austin, however, fails to explicitly present a visual notification to notify the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode.
Geller teaches present a visual notification to notify the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Geller FIG. 6 and Paragraph 21 “The notification information 110 indicates to the other vehicles (or devices) that the vehicle 101 is currently operating with semi-autonomous or autonomous features. Generally, the notification information 110 is sent or transmitted to vehicles that are behind, to the sides and/or within a predefined range (preferably 25-100 meter range) of the vehicle 101. The notification information 110 can also be sent or transmitted to vehicles and/or devices that are travelling or moving the same or similar direction. In one embodiment, the vehicle 101 may transmit the notification information 110 in rear and side directions 115 and only towards vehicles in these directions 115 and up to a 100 meter range (e.g., vehicles 102, 104 and 106) will receive the notification information 110. The vehicles to the front (e.g., vehicle 103) and the vehicles further away (e.g., vehicle 105, which is greater than 100 meters away) will not receive the notification information 110.” | Paragraph 33 “FIG. 6 is an exemplary method 600 for notifying a third party or a third party device whether a first vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode or a semi-autonomous mode according to an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes receiving, at a first processor, notification information including whether a first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and a description of the first vehicle (step 605). The method also includes transmitting the notification information from a transmitter coupled to the first processor to a receiver coupled to a second processor of a remote device (step 610). The method also includes displaying, using a display screen coupled to the second processor, the notification information including whether the first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and the description of the first vehicle (step 615).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Austin to present a visual notification to notify the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode, as taught by Geller as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle information transmission (Geller Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to systems and methods that provide an external indicator on a vehicle and/or transmits notification information from the vehicle to one or more other vehicles or to one or more devices indicating that the vehicle is operating with semi-autonomous or autonomous features.”).
With respect to claim 2, Austin in view of Geller teach that notifying the other vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode further comprises communicating a data message to the other vehicle, wherein the data message indicates the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode, and wherein the data message comprises an identifier associated with the autonomous vehicle (See at least Geller FIG. 6 “615” and Paragraph 33 “The method also includes displaying, using a display screen coupled to the second processor, the notification information including whether the first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and the description of the first vehicle (step 615).”).
With respect to claim 3, Austin in view of Geller teach that the notification device comprises a flashing light source, and wherein presenting the visual notification comprises powering on the flashing light source (See at least Austin Paragraph 36 “ If the vehicle under automated control determines that all of the vehicles within the radius are also under automated control, that vehicle broadcasts a specific signal to the external environment by an external mode indicator 111, e.g., flashes a blue light located on the roof of the vehicle. If one or more vehicles within the predetermined radius are under manual control, the vehicle will broadcast a different signal, e.g., flash a red light.”).
With respect to claim 4, Austin in view of Geller teach that the notification device comprises a display board including a two dimensional array of light emitting diodes, and wherein presenting the visual notification comprises displaying, on the display board, text indicating the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 53-55 “As shown in FIG. 5A, the exterior mode indicator 111 may be a dome 516 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, wherein the dome flashes a specific color to indicate one or more automated vehicles in the area defined by a perimeter around the automated vehicle and a different color to indicate one or more non-automated vehicles. The external mode indicator need not flash, but may be a solid color, such as blue for automated vehicles and red when non-automated vehicles are detected in the area. Additionally, the external mode indicator may flash at a rate which indicates the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. The colors are not limited, but may preferentially be blue, red, purple or turquoise ... As shown in FIG. 5C, the exterior mode indicator may be a display 518 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, which displays the ratio of automated vehicles within the perimeter. For example, if the number of vehicles within the perimeter is five and four are automated, the ratio is 4:1 and the display may broadcast “A 4”, “M 1”.”).
With respect to claim 5, Austin in view of Geller teach the notification device comprises a device configured to display an image indicating the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode, and wherein presenting the visual notification comprises presenting the image1 (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 46 “Based on the pedestrian risk assessment, the automated vehicle may temporarily increase the brightness of the information display or change the intensity or pattern of the dome light to draw attention and increase the likelihood that the pedestrian will see the message display. ” | Paragraphs 53-55 “As shown in FIG. 5A, the exterior mode indicator 111 may be a dome 516 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, wherein the dome flashes a specific color to indicate one or more automated vehicles in the area defined by a perimeter around the automated vehicle and a different color to indicate one or more non-automated vehicles. The external mode indicator need not flash, but may be a solid color, such as blue for automated vehicles and red when non-automated vehicles are detected in the area. Additionally, the external mode indicator may flash at a rate which indicates the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. The colors are not limited, but may preferentially be blue, red, purple or turquoise ... As shown in FIG. 5C, the exterior mode indicator may be a display 518 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, which displays the ratio of automated vehicles within the perimeter. For example, if the number of vehicles within the perimeter is five and four are automated, the ratio is 4:1 and the display may broadcast “A 4”, “M 1”.”).
With respect to claim 6, Austin in view of Geller teach that one or more notification devices are located on one or more sides of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin Paragraphs 47 “The external mode indicator may be a round or dome shaped light on the roof, as described above. However, the external mode indicator is not limited to a round or dome shaped light on the roof, and may be a light bar, a display with symbols or text, a display which flashes colors in a pattern, and or the like. Although preferentially placed on the roof so that it can be seen from all directions, the external mode indicator is not limited to the roof as a display location, and may be placed on a front windshield or a front grill or any other location easily viewable from the pedestrian's point of view.”)
With respect to claim 7, Austin in view of Geller teach that one or more notification devices are located on one or more rear view windows of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin Paragraphs 47 “The external mode indicator may be a round or dome shaped light on the roof, as described above. However, the external mode indicator is not limited to a round or dome shaped light on the roof, and may be a light bar, a display with symbols or text, a display which flashes colors in a pattern, and or the like. Although preferentially placed on the roof so that it can be seen from all directions, the external mode indicator is not limited to the roof as a display location, and may be placed on a front windshield or a front grill or any other location easily viewable from the pedestrian's point of view.”).
With respect to claim 8, Austin teaches a method, comprising:
operating the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous mode; defining a threshold region around the autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 57 “FIG. 6 is a flowchart depicting the processes 600 followed by the automated vehicle to determine the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. In step S640, subject vehicle 110 sets a detection perimeter 114 at a predetermined radius from the center of the vehicle. The predetermined radius may be in the range of 25 feet to 525 feet (about 1/10 mile) as determined by type of highway, density of traffic, existence of traffic lights, speed limits, and the like, and may be different when the vehicle travels from one location to the next”);
receiving sensor data from at least one vehicle sensor located on the autonomous vehicle; detecting, based on the received sensor data, a presence of another vehicle; determining a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle; determining, based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle, that the other vehicle is within the threshold region (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”); and
notifying that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 60 “If the vehicle is moving toward a pedestrian, the process moves to step S656, where the total number of vehicles within the perimeter is calculated. At step S658, the ratio of automated to non-automated vehicles and/or percentage of automated vehicles to the total number of vehicles is calculated. At step S660, the ratio or percentage is displayed on the external mode indicator.”).
Austin, however, fails to explicitly disclose presenting, by a notification device located on the autonomous vehicle, a visual notification to notify the another vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode.
Geller teaches presenting, by a notification device located on the autonomous vehicle, a visual notification to notify the another vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Geller FIG. 6 and Paragraph 21 “The notification information 110 indicates to the other vehicles (or devices) that the vehicle 101 is currently operating with semi-autonomous or autonomous features. Generally, the notification information 110 is sent or transmitted to vehicles that are behind, to the sides and/or within a predefined range (preferably 25-100 meter range) of the vehicle 101. The notification information 110 can also be sent or transmitted to vehicles and/or devices that are travelling or moving the same or similar direction. In one embodiment, the vehicle 101 may transmit the notification information 110 in rear and side directions 115 and only towards vehicles in these directions 115 and up to a 100 meter range (e.g., vehicles 102, 104 and 106) will receive the notification information 110. The vehicles to the front (e.g., vehicle 103) and the vehicles further away (e.g., vehicle 105, which is greater than 100 meters away) will not receive the notification information 110.” | Paragraph 33 “FIG. 6 is an exemplary method 600 for notifying a third party or a third party device whether a first vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode or a semi-autonomous mode according to an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes receiving, at a first processor, notification information including whether a first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and a description of the first vehicle (step 605). The method also includes transmitting the notification information from a transmitter coupled to the first processor to a receiver coupled to a second processor of a remote device (step 610). The method also includes displaying, using a display screen coupled to the second processor, the notification information including whether the first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and the description of the first vehicle (step 615).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin to presenting, by a notification device located on the autonomous vehicle, a visual notification to notify the another vehicle within the threshold region that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode, as taught by Geller as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle information transmission (Geller Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to systems and methods that provide an external indicator on a vehicle and/or transmits notification information from the vehicle to one or more other vehicles or to one or more devices indicating that the vehicle is operating with semi-autonomous or autonomous features.”).
With respect to claim 10, Austin in view of Geller teach that the at least one vehicle sensor comprises at least one of a camera, a light detection and ranging sensor, or an infrared sensor (See at least Austin Paragraph 63 “Sensor data from at least one of the cameras, LiDAR scanners, radar sensors, and the like may be used to form images of the surrounding environment. As an example, a pedestrian head pose and body posture may be derived from a depth map and appearance information (such as color contrasts, intensity, etc.) from the sensor data, and detect pedestrian candidate regions (such as via a bounded point cloud input of LIDAR-based sensor devices, image recognition via imaging-based sensor devices, etc.)”).
With respect to claim 18, Austin in view of Geller teach presenting the visual notification comprises displaying, on display board, text indicating the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode, and wherein the display board comprises a two dimensional array of light emitting diodes (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 53-55 “As shown in FIG. 5A, the exterior mode indicator 111 may be a dome 516 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, wherein the dome flashes a specific color to indicate one or more automated vehicles in the area defined by a perimeter around the automated vehicle and a different color to indicate one or more non-automated vehicles. The external mode indicator need not flash, but may be a solid color, such as blue for automated vehicles and red when non-automated vehicles are detected in the area. Additionally, the external mode indicator may flash at a rate which indicates the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. The colors are not limited, but may preferentially be blue, red, purple or turquoise ... As shown in FIG. 5C, the exterior mode indicator may be a display 518 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, which displays the ratio of automated vehicles within the perimeter. For example, if the number of vehicles within the perimeter is five and four are automated, the ratio is 4:1 and the display may broadcast “A 4”, “M 1”.”).
With respect to claim 19, Austin in view of Geller teach presenting the visual notification further comprises triggering the notification device to power on a flashing light source (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 53-55 “As shown in FIG. 5A, the exterior mode indicator 111 may be a dome 516 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, wherein the dome flashes a specific color to indicate one or more automated vehicles in the area defined by a perimeter around the automated vehicle and a different color to indicate one or more non-automated vehicles. The external mode indicator need not flash, but may be a solid color, such as blue for automated vehicles and red when non-automated vehicles are detected in the area. Additionally, the external mode indicator may flash at a rate which indicates the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. The colors are not limited, but may preferentially be blue, red, purple or turquoise ... As shown in FIG. 5C, the exterior mode indicator may be a display 518 on the roof of the subject vehicle 110, which displays the ratio of automated vehicles within the perimeter. For example, if the number of vehicles within the perimeter is five and four are automated, the ratio is 4:1 and the display may broadcast “A 4”, “M 1”.”).
With respect to claim 20, Austin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
operating the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous mode; defining a threshold region around the autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 57 “FIG. 6 is a flowchart depicting the processes 600 followed by the automated vehicle to determine the ratio or percentage of automated to non-automated vehicles. In step S640, subject vehicle 110 sets a detection perimeter 114 at a predetermined radius from the center of the vehicle. The predetermined radius may be in the range of 25 feet to 525 feet (about 1/10 mile) as determined by type of highway, density of traffic, existence of traffic lights, speed limits, and the like, and may be different when the vehicle travels from one location to the next”);
receiving sensor data from at least one vehicle sensor located on the autonomous vehicle; detecting, based on the received sensor data, a presence of another vehicle; determining a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle; determining, based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other vehicle, that the other vehicle is within the threshold region (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”); and
notifying that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode by at least presenting, by a notification device located on the autonomous vehicle, a visual notification (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraph 60 “If the vehicle is moving toward a pedestrian, the process moves to step S656, where the total number of vehicles within the perimeter is calculated. At step S658, the ratio of automated to non-automated vehicles and/or percentage of automated vehicles to the total number of vehicles is calculated. At step S660, the ratio or percentage is displayed on the external mode indicator.”).
Austin, however, fails to explicitly disclose notifying the other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode.
Geller teaches notifying the other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode (See at least Geller FIG. 6 and Paragraph 33 “FIG. 6 is an exemplary method 600 for notifying a third party or a third party device whether a first vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode or a semi-autonomous mode according to an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes receiving, at a first processor, notification information including whether a first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and a description of the first vehicle (step 605). The method also includes transmitting the notification information from a transmitter coupled to the first processor to a receiver coupled to a second processor of a remote device (step 610). The method also includes displaying, using a display screen coupled to the second processor, the notification information including whether the first vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode or the semi-autonomous mode and the description of the first vehicle (step 615).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin to include notifying the other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode, as taught by Geller as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle information transmission (Geller Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to systems and methods that provide an external indicator on a vehicle and/or transmits notification information from the vehicle to one or more other vehicles or to one or more devices indicating that the vehicle is operating with semi-autonomous or autonomous features.”).
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) further in view of Sung (US 10513274 B1) (“Sung”).
With respect to claim 9, Austin in view of Geller teach detecting, based on the received sensor data, a presence of another autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”).
Austin in view of Geller fail to explicitly disclose determining a second distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other autonomous vehicle; determining, that the second distance is less than a vehicle to vehicle communication range; and transmitting, in response to determining the second distance is less than the vehicle to vehicle communication range, a message from the autonomous vehicle to the other autonomous vehicle.
Sung teaches determining a second distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other autonomous vehicle; determining, that the second distance is less than a vehicle to vehicle communication range; and transmitting, in response to determining the second distance is less than the vehicle to vehicle communication range, a message from the autonomous vehicle to the other autonomous vehicle (See at least Sung Col. 2 lines 19-27 “An aspect of the present disclosure provides an apparatus for notifying a driver of status information of a surrounding vehicle to guide the driver to conduct defensive driving to provide safety by communicating with the surrounding vehicle which is located within a predetermined distance from a host vehicle on a road and is traveling in the same direction as the host vehicle and notify the driver whether the surrounding vehicle activates an autonomous mode and a method therefor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin in view of Geller to include determining a second distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other autonomous vehicle; determining, that the second distance is less than a vehicle to vehicle communication range; and transmitting, in response to determining the second distance is less than the vehicle to vehicle communication range, a message from the autonomous vehicle to the other autonomous vehicle, as taught by Sung as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate information transmission (Sung “The present disclosure relates to an apparatus for notifying a driver of status information of a surrounding vehicle and a method therefor”).
With respect to claim 10, Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung teach that the at least one vehicle sensor comprises at least one of a camera, a light detection and ranging sensor, or an infrared sensor (See at least Austin Paragraph 31 “An automated vehicle may be capable of sensing its environment and navigating with little or no user input. It senses the environment by using vehicle sensing devices such as radar, LiDAR, cameras, and the like. Automated vehicles further use information from global positioning systems (GPS) technology, navigation systems, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technology, and/or drive-by-wire systems to navigate the vehicle.”).
With respect to claim 13, Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung teach that the message transmitted by the autonomous vehicle comprises a type of the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the type of the autonomous vehicle comprises a truck (See at least Geller Paragraph 19 “The systems and methods transmit the notification information 110 from the first vehicle 101 to one or more devices or systems 250 (e.g., smart phones) and/or other vehicles (e.g., the second vehicle 102). The notification information 110 may include data such as whether the vehicle 101 is operating in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, which features (e.g., adaptive cruise control) of the autonomous or semi-autonomous mode are active and/or inactive, whether the external indicator 230 of the vehicle 101 is on or off, a make, a model, a year, a color, a type of vehicle (e.g., number of doors, hatchback, SUV, sedan, coupe, truck, etc.), a license plate number and a photo of the vehicle 101. By reviewing the notification information 110 and/or by observing the external indicator(s) 230, the drivers of the other vehicles (or third party using a device) are able to quickly and easily determine whether the vehicle 101 is operating with autonomous or semi-autonomous capabilities.”).
With respect to claim 14, Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung teach that the message transmitted by the autonomous vehicle comprises a software version currently installed in a control device of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Geller Paragraph 19 “The systems and methods transmit the notification information 110 from the first vehicle 101 to one or more devices or systems 250 (e.g., smart phones) and/or other vehicles (e.g., the second vehicle 102). The notification information 110 may include data such as whether the vehicle 101 is operating in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, which features (e.g., adaptive cruise control) of the autonomous or semi-autonomous mode are active and/or inactive, whether the external indicator 230 of the vehicle 101 is on or off, a make, a model, a year, a color, a type of vehicle (e.g., number of doors, hatchback, SUV, sedan, coupe, truck, etc.), a license plate number and a photo of the vehicle 101. By reviewing the notification information 110 and/or by observing the external indicator(s) 230, the drivers of the other vehicles (or third party using a device) are able to quickly and easily determine whether the vehicle 101 is operating with autonomous or semi-autonomous capabilities.”).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) in view of Sung (US 10513274 B1) (“Sung”) further in view of Mizobuchi (US 20190192055 A1) (“Mizobuchi”).
With respect to claim 11, Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung teach detecting the presence of another autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”).
Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung fail to explicitly disclose determining that there is no driver in the other autonomous vehicle.
Mizobuchi teaches determining that there is no driver in the other autonomous vehicle (See at least Mizobuchi Paragraph 41 “When the apparatus to be driven is a vehicle, the detection apparatus 43 may, for example, be a sensor for detecting that the driver is sitting in the driver's seat or a sensor for detecting attachment or detachment of the seatbelt. The detection apparatus 43 may also function as the camera 12. In this case, the camera 12 may monitor the presence of the driver's head in the imaging area and output a signal when the head is not detected. The processing initiation unit 31 of the controller 23 may start the determination processing when the detection apparatus 43 detects a predetermined event. Detection of a predetermined event includes the case of the detection apparatus 43 detecting attachment or detachment of the driver's seat seatbelt, the case of the driver not being detected in images captured by the camera 12 for a predetermined time or longer, and the case of the detection apparatus 43 being a vehicle seat sensor and not detecting sitting by the driver for a predetermined time or longer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung to include determining that there is no driver in the other autonomous vehicle, as taught by Mizobuchi as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate determinations of autonomous vehicles (Mizobuchi Paragraph 2 “The present disclosure relates to a determination apparatus, an imaging apparatus, a driver confirmation system, a moveable body, and a determination method”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) in view of Sung (US 10513274 B1) (“Sung”) further in view of Strassberger (US 20160343247 A1) (“Strassberger”).
With respect to claim 12, Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung teach detecting the presence of another autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”).
Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung fail to explicitly disclose determining that a model of the other autonomous vehicle matches one of a plurality of autonomous vehicle models.
Strassberger teaches determining that a model of the other autonomous vehicle matches one of a plurality of autonomous vehicle models (See at least Strassberger Paragraph 43 “According to one advantageous configuration, a manufacturer and/or a model designation of the first vehicle are/is determined. At least one parameter for a distance control is determined as a function of the determined manufacturer and/or the determined model designation. The distance from the third vehicle to the first vehicle is set as a function of the at least one determined parameter.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung to include determining that a model of the other autonomous vehicle matches one of a plurality of autonomous vehicle models, as taught by Strassberger as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate determination of autonomous vehicles (Strassberger Paragraph 2 “The invention relates to a method for detecting autonomously operated vehicles.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) in view of Sung (US 10513274 B1) (“Sung”) further in view of Austin II (US 20210394793 A1) (“Austin II”)
With respect to claim 15, Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung fail to explicitly disclose that the message transmitted by the autonomous vehicle comprises a next navigation maneuver of the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the next navigation maneuver comprises at least one of changing to a particular lane at a particular time, taking a particular exit at a particular time, and continuing on a current lane for a particular time period.
Austin II teaches that the message transmitted by the autonomous vehicle comprises a next navigation maneuver of the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the next navigation maneuver comprises at least one of changing to a particular lane at a particular time, taking a particular exit at a particular time, and continuing on a current lane for a particular time period (See at least Austin FIG. 3 and Paragraph 61 “As shown in FIG. 3(a-i), an eHMI notification may include text or text and a symbol, such as a) “left turn” b) “right turn”, c) “left turn” plus a left turn arrow, d) “right turn” plus a right turn arrow, e) “Stopping”, f) light bars of different colors or intensity to show the speed of the vehicle, g) “Stopped”, h) “waiting” and a symbol indicating that the vehicle is at zero speed, i) “driving” and the vehicle speed. The eHMI notification may further include brake light patterns, flasher patterns, or the like, combined with text, such as “Stop”, “Waiting”, “Driving”, “Braking”, “Turning Left”, “Turning Right” or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung to include that the message transmitted by the autonomous vehicle comprises a next navigation maneuver of the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the next navigation maneuver comprises at least one of changing to a particular lane at a particular time, taking a particular exit at a particular time, and continuing on a current lane for a particular time period, as taught by Austin II as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe travel of the Autonomous vehicle (Austin II Paragraph 1 “The present disclosure is directed to methods for presenting external human-machine interface (eHMI) notifications to a road user at an external location on the vehicle that the road user can see.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) in view of Sung (US 10513274 B1) (“Sung”) further in view of Ljubuncic (US 20160378112 A1) (“Ljubuncic”).
With respect to claim 16, detecting the presence of another autonomous vehicle (See at least Austin FIG. 6 and Paragraphs 59-60 “At step 644, the vehicle 110 uses its external vehicle sensors to identify pedestrians (such as pedestrian 142, FIG. 1) and non-automated vehicles (such as any of 112, FIG. 1-4) within the perimeter. At step 648, the vehicle 110 detects the number of non-automated vehicles within the perimeter. At step S650, the vehicle 110 determines whether there are any pedestrians within the perimeter and, if so, at S652 detects the movements of the pedestrians. If there are no pedestrians within the perimeter, the process moves to S662, where the external mode broadcast is suppressed. At S654, the vehicle 110 determines whether the vehicle is moving toward the pedestrian or a non-automated vehicle”).
Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung fail to explicitly disclose increasing a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other autonomous vehicle.
Ljubuncic teaches increasing a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other autonomous vehicle (See at least Ljubuncic Paragraph 24 “The system 102 for control may be a safety system for the autonomous vehicle 100 to provide one or more suggested driving aspects that include one or more defensive actions to increase safety of occupants of the autonomous vehicle 100 … Examples of defensive actions that may increase occupant safety include, but are not limited to: decreasing a velocity of travel of the autonomous vehicle 100; signaling and/or activating emergency lights; tightening safety belts; closing windows; locking doors; unlocking doors; increasing distance between the autonomous vehicle 100 and vehicles in a vicinity of the autonomous vehicle 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin in view of Geller in view of Sung to include increasing a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the other autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ljubuncic as disclosed above, in order to increase safety (Ljubuncic Paragraph 1 “Embodiments described herein generally relate to autonomous vehicles. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments relate to autonomous vehicle safety systems and methods”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 20220130254 A1) (“Austin”) in view of Geller (US 20170088038 A1) (“Geller”) further in view of Reiley (US 20180173237 A1) (“Reiley”).
With respect to claim 17, Austin in view of Geller fail to explicitly disclose operating the autonomous vehicle in a nonautonomous mode; and notifying other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the nonautonomous mode.
Reiley teaches operating the autonomous vehicle in a nonautonomous mode; and notifying other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the nonautonomous mode (See at least Reiley Paragraph 12 “For example, while the autonomous vehicle is in motion and moving along a roadway with other drivers, these other drivers and vehicles may have visual access to the roadway and to objects and other vehicles ahead; the autonomous vehicle can thus communicate its current state, such as whether it is in a fully-autonomous or a fully-manual mode, through its rear-facing display in Block S110 in order to better enable these other drivers and vehicles to predict the autonomous vehicle's current and future motion. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Austin in view of Geller to include operating the autonomous vehicle in a nonautonomous mode; and notifying other vehicle that the autonomous vehicle is operating in the nonautonomous mode, as taught by Reiley as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe travel (Reiley Paragraph 1 “This invention relates generally to the field of autonomous vehicles and more specifically to a new and useful methods for communicating state, intent, and context of an autonomous vehicle in the field of autonomous vehicles.”).
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 IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The published specification fails to provide a limiting definition