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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed 07/15/2025. Claims 1, 15, 19, and 20 are amended. Claim 5, 8, and 13 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-20 are pending, and rejected as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Abstract
Amendments to specification have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore, the specification objection for abstract has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
Amendments to claims have been fully considered and persuasive with respect to rejection of claim 5. Therefore, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1: Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 recites: perform control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination, and wherein the local cabin control command overrides the remote cabin control command based on an instant condition comprising the autonomous vehicle operating in semi-autonomous mode; and
Claim 19: Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 recites: performing control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination, the control regulation prioritizing the local cabin control command over the remote cabin control command when the autonomous vehicle is operating in semi-autonomous mode; and
Claim 20: Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 recites: perform control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination, and wherein the local cabin control command overrides the remote cabin control command based on an instant condition comprising the autonomous vehicle operating in semi-autonomous mode; and
Applicant argue that the prior art Talamonti et al. (US11924353 B2) and Bangslund (US 20200223517 A1) fail to anticipate every element of the amended claims 1, 19, and 20. The applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of the amended claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 1, 19, and 20 are maintained in view of the combination of references Talamonti et al., Bangslund, and Marzorati (US 20230202490 A1). In particular, the amendments to the claims 1, 19, and 20 are addressed in the instant office action.
Applicant argue that Chen (US 2021/0191398) fails anticipate every element of claims 4, 11, and 13-15 due to the aforementioned deficiencies of Talamonti and Bangslund in claim 1. However, upon further consideration, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 4, 11, and 13-15 are maintained in view of the combination of references Talamonti et al., Bangslund, Marzorati and Chen. In particular, claims 4, 11, and 13-14 and amended claim 15 are addressed in the instant office action.
Applicant argue that Zhang (US 20200406914 A1) fails anticipate every element of claims 6 and 12 due to the aforementioned deficiencies of Talamonti and Bangslund in claim 1. However, upon further consideration, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 6 and 12 are maintained in view of the combination of references Talamonti et al., Bangslund, Marzorati and Zhang. In particular, claims 6 and 12 are addressed in the instant office action.
Applicant argue that Marzorati fails anticipate every element of claims 7, 9, and 17 due to the aforementioned deficiencies of Talamonti and Bangslund in claim 1. However, upon further consideration, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 7, 9, and 17 are maintained in view of the combination of references Talamonti et al., Bangslund, and Marzorati. In particular, claims 7, 9, and 17 are addressed in the instant office action.
Applicant argue that Tremblay (US 20190258253 A1) fails anticipate every element of claim 10 due to the aforementioned deficiencies of Talamonti and Bangslund in claim 1. However, upon further consideration, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claim 10 is maintained in view of the combination of references Talamonti et al., Bangslund, Marzorati and Talamonti. In particular, claim 10 is addressed in the instant office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talamonti, and further in view of Bangslund (US 20200223517 A1) and Marzorati (US 20230202490 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Talamonti teaches (Currently Amended) an autonomous vehicle, comprising (Talamonti Col. 1, lines 54-55; the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode):
a vehicle chassis (Talamonti, Col. 1, line 42; “The vehicle 100” ) comprising a drive system (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 43-45; “The vehicle 100 may be powered in variety of known ways, e.g., with an electric motor and/or internal combustion engine”) and a cabin (Talamonti, FIG. 1; the user interface device 140 is disposed in a vehicle 100 interior and mounted to a vehicle 100 instrument panel) comprising a plurality of cabin controls (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 63-67; “The computer 110 may include programming to operate one or more of vehicle brakes, propulsion (e.g., control of acceleration in the vehicle by controlling one or more of an internal combustion engine, electric motor, hybrid engine, etc.), steering, climate control, interior and/or exterior lights, etc.”);
an autonomous vehicle controller, comprising a processor circuit and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions to instruct the processor circuit to operate the drive system autonomously (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 49-58; “The computer 110 includes a processor and a memory such as are known. The memory includes one or more forms of computer-readable media, and stores instructions executable by the computer 110 for performing various operations, including as disclosed herein. The computer 110 may operate the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode. For purposes of this disclosure, an autonomous mode is defined as one in which each of vehicle 100 propulsion, braking, and steering are controlled by the computer 110.”);
actuators to electronically operate the cabin controls (Talamonti, Col. 3, lines 5-10; “The actuators 120 are a variety of known devices implemented via circuits, chips, or other electronic components that can actuate various vehicle subsystems in accordance with appropriate control signals as is known. The actuators 120, therefore, may be used to control braking, acceleration, and steering of the vehicle 100.”);
a communication circuit with wireless communication capability (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 30-32; “the computer 110 may be configured for communicating through a vehicle-to-infrastructure (V-to-I) interface with a remote computer 180 via a network 190.”); and
instructions encoded within the memory to further instruct the processor circuit to (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 48-51; “generally included in instructions stored in the memory and executed by the computer 110 is programming for operating one or more vehicle 100 components.”):
receive a remote cabin control command via the communication circuit (Talamonti, Col. 6, lines 63-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-2; “In another example, a communication between the remote computer 180 and the vehicle 100 computer 110, and/or a communication between the remote computer 180 and the control computer 160 may be encrypted. For example, the remote computer 180 may send messages to the vehicle 100 computer 110 that are encrypted with an encryption key.”);
receive a local cabin control command from a passenger of the autonomous vehicle via a user interface and/or hardware controls (Talamonti, Col. 3, lines 11-14; “The user interface device 140 can include a touch screen, an interactive voice response (IVR) system, and/or other input/output mechanisms such as are known, and can receive input data from a user and/or outputs data to the user.”);
perform control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command (Talamonti, Col. 10, lines 41-42; “Next, in a block 370, the vehicle 100 computer 110 causes an action based on the received command.”) comprising the autonomous vehicle operating in semi-autonomous mode (Talamonti Col. 1, lines 54-55; the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode); and
cause the actuators to perform an action in response to a result of the control regulation (Talamonti, Col. 10, lines 41-45; “Next, in a block 370, the vehicle 100 computer 110 causes an action based on the received command. For example, the vehicle 100 computer 110 may send a message to the vehicle 100 brake actuator including a requested brake pressure of 500 kPa.”).
Even though Talamonti teaches about the instant condition wherein the autonomous vehicle is operating in semi-autonomous mode, Talamonti fails to explicitly teach by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination, and wherein the local cabin control command overrides the remote cabin control command
Bangslund, in the same field of endeavor (Bangslund, at least one para. 0002; “unmanned remote-controlled and optionally partially autonomously operating container ships”), teaches by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination (Bangslund, at least one para. 0103-0104; “The ship control unit 204 receives the pilot control information. In step 608 the pilot control information is verified before the ship control unit 204 sends commands to the one or more maneuvering units. The step of verifying the pilot control information determines whether the instructions are in principle correct and do not affect the safety of the container ship 1. In some embodiments the ship control unit 204 sends the pilot control information to the pilot control information check module 344. The module 344 checks the pilot control information with the navigation module 346 and the collision avoidance module 348 to determine that the container ship will not collide with objects or navigate out of a navigable waterway based on the instructions in the pilot control information. The step of verifying the pilot control information 608 can be used with the embodiment discussed in reference to FIG. 5. This means that verification step 608 can be carried out before the helmsman adjusts the course and speed of the container ship 1.”, in other words, Bangslund teaches how the remote cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules), and wherein the local cabin control command overrides the remote cabin control command (Bangslund, at least one para. 0091; “In some embodiments the ship control interface 350 comprises an input for overriding the pilot control instructions. In this way the captain can override and reject the pilot control instructions as shown in step 524”) and (Bangslund, at least one para. 0091; “the captain may know that the container ship 1 cannot react quickly enough and the captain has not received a suitable pilot control information from the remote control center 18. Accordingly, the captain can override the pilot control information and navigate the container ship 1 using alternative means”).
The combination of Talamonti and Bangslund are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Bangslund. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can be safely controlled during a network outage without any interruptions or without compromising any safety standards with respect to the remote cabin control command.
Even though the combination of Talamonti and Bangslund teaches about “how the remote cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules”, the combination of Talamonti and Bangslund fails to explicitly teach “how the local cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules”.
Marzorati, in the same field of endeavor (Marzorati, at least one para. 0014; “Described herein are approaches to add intelligence to services and functions provided by environments, such autonomous vehicles (AVs) and close gaps between functionality and technical adoption/transition, while meeting user satisfaction goals.”), teaches by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination (Marzorati, at least one para. 0042; “The determination of whether to perform the input command can therefore be based on the classification of that command. Command classification can account for safety and other factors that might influence appropriateness of performing a command in various contexts, beyond just the prioritization levels of the users involved. For instance, the classification can account for safety in terms of whether performance of the command is inherently unsafe and should be disallowed. Opening a window of the AV traveling at a high rate of speed may be acceptable if requested by an adult but not a child, while opening a door when traveling at a high rate of speed may be unacceptable as a safety risk no matter the prioritization level of the person who attempts to invoke the command to perform that function. Environmental context encompasses any relevant considerations that may be present at that time, and examples include but are not limited to: number, identity, presence, prioritization levels, preferences, and another other characteristics of AV occupants; current travel conditions (traffic, weather, etc.); navigation, speed, destination information; and safety considerations. As another example of environmental context informing command handling, the vehicle might recognize that it is pouring rain outside and therefore to reject the command of an occupant (or occupants with lower than a threshold prioritization level) to open a window while the rain persists.”, in other words, Marzorati teaches how the local cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules)
The combination of Talamonti, Bangslund, and Marzorati are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Marzorati. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can be safely controlled with respect to set prioritization levels or hierarchy levels for occupants of the vehicle without compromising any safety standards with respect to the local cabin control command.
Regarding claim 2, Talamonti teaches (Original) the autonomous vehicle of claim 1: (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 54-55; “the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode”)
wherein the instructions are further to authenticate the remote cabin control command (Talamonti, Col. 3, lines 45-49; “In one example, to prevent an intruder computer from controlling a vehicle 100 operation, the vehicle 100 computer 110 may be programmed to authenticate a control computer 160 that requests to access the vehicle 100 computer 110 and control a vehicle 100 operation.”).
Regarding claim 3, Talamonti teaches (Original) the autonomous vehicle of claim 1: (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 54-55; “the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode”)
wherein the instructions are further to drop the remote cabin control command if the remote cabin control command is found to be inauthentic (Talamonti, Col. 8, lines 17-21 & FIG. 2; “If the control computer 160 determines that the vehicle 100 computer 110 acknowledged the authentication, then the process 200 proceeds to a block 250; otherwise, the process 200 ends, or alternatively, the process 200 may return to the block 215, although not shown in FIG. 2.”).
Regarding claim 7, Talamonti teaches (Original) The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, wherein performing control regulation (Talamonti, Col. 10, lines 41-42; “Next, in a block 370, the vehicle 100 computer 110 causes an action based on the received command.”). comprises: allowing the remote cabin control command to override the local cabin control command if the remote cabin control command is sent in response to a rider service request.
However, the Talamonti does not explicitly teach allowing the remote cabin control command to override the local cabin control command if the remote cabin control command is sent in response to a rider service request.
Marzorati, in the same field of endeavor (Marzorati, at least one para. 0014; “Described herein are approaches to add intelligence to services and functions provided by environments, such autonomous vehicles (AVs) and close gaps between functionality and technical adoption/transition, while meeting user satisfaction goals.”), teaches allowing the remote cabin control command to override the local cabin control command if the remote cabin control command is sent in response to a rider service request (Marzorati, at least one para. 0034; “the child’s command to open the window could be performed as long as another occupant (or other user, such as a parent who remains at home) has not preemptively, or does not subsequently, within a defined amount of time such as 5 seconds, override this command by the child.”).
Talamonti and Marzorati are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Marzorati. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to set prioritization levels or hierarchy levels for occupants of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Marzorati teaches (Previously presented) The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, wherein the remote cabin control command conditionally overrides the local cabin control command based on an override condition (Marzorati, at least one para. 0042; “As another example of environmental context informing command handling, the vehicle might recognize that it is pouring rain outside and therefore to reject the command of an occupant (or occupants with lower than a threshold prioritization level) to open a window while the rain persists.”, wherein the local control command being an occupant trying to open a window, the override condition being pouring rain outside, and the raining is recognized as external weather) , the override condition comprising at least one of temperature (Marzorati, at least one para. 0018; “Sensors 110a, ..., 110n can include any type of sensors for obtaining or measuring, and providing data, for instance data that conveys environmental context that includes, among other information, properties of AV occupants 114. Sensors 110a, ..., 110n can include, for example, optical sensors, audio sensors, occupancy sensors, position sensors, temperature sensors…”, wherein the temperature sensor is utilized to measure temperature) and social condition (Marzorati, at least one para. 0042; “Social and other hierarchical rankings, or prioritization levels, can also be determined and/or learned over time, for instance based on overrides or other interactions with the system by users”).
Regarding claim 16, Talamonti teaches (Original) The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, wherein performing control regulation (Talamonti, Col. 10, lines 41-42; “Next, in a block 370, the vehicle 100 computer 110 causes an action based on the received command.”) comprises:
determining a state of the cabin controls;
determining that the remote cabin control command is invalid based on the state of the cabin controls; and
rejecting the remote cabin control command.
However, the Talamonti does not explicitly teach determining a state of the cabin controls;
determining that the remote cabin control command is invalid based on the state of the cabin controls; and rejecting the remote cabin control command.
Bangslund, in the same field of endeavor (Bangslund, at least one para. 0002; “unmanned remote-controlled and optionally partially autonomously operating container ships”), teaches determining a state of the cabin controls (Bangslund, at least one para. 0050; “As mentioned, the remote control center 18 is configured to send pilot control information in response to received situation information of the container ship 1.”) and Bangslund, at least one para. 0064; “In some embodiments the situation information comprises images and or videos from the cameras 304 showing one or more fields of view of around the container ship, LIDAR information, SONAR information, RADAR information, sound information from the microphones 312, GPS, movement information from accelerometers 338, and information from the maneuvering units 316, 318, 320, 322, 324.”, In other words, Bangslund disclose how the situation information is collect and transmitted to remote control center to configure pilot control information. The situation information Bangslund teaches the state of the cabin controls of the claimed invention.);
determining that the remote cabin control command is invalid based on the state of the cabin controls; and rejecting the remote cabin control command (Bangslund, at least one para. 0082; “the ship control unit 204 rejects the remote pilot assistance because the communication link does not have sufficient bandwidth transmit all the necessary situation information to the remote control center 18. This would mean that the pilot cannot generate informed pilot control information for advising the container ship 1 because he does not have access to all the status information of the container ship 1.”, In other words, Bangslund discloses how all necessary situational information is not transmitted to the remote control center due to insufficient bandwidth. It is understood that the partial situational information or inaccurate situational information will result in incorrect pilot control information. As a result, ship control unit rejects the remote pilot assistance take over the ship maneuvering units so that the captain can control the ship according to the current states of the situational information.).
Talamonti and Bangslund are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Bangslund. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can reject incorrect remote commands to improve safety of the vehicle (Bangslund 0105).
Regarding claim 17, Talamonti teaches (Original) The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, wherein the cabin controls (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 63-67; “The computer 110 may include programming to operate one or more of vehicle brakes, propulsion (e.g., control of acceleration in the vehicle by controlling one or more of an internal combustion engine, electric motor, hybrid engine, etc.), steering, climate control, interior and/or exterior lights, etc.”) comprise controls for one or more of: window(s) and door(s) of the autonomous vehicle.
However, the Talamonti does not explicitly teach controls for one or more of: window(s) and door(s) of the autonomous vehicle.
Marzorati, in the same field of endeavor (Marzorati, at least one para. 0014; “Described herein are approaches to add intelligence to services and functions provided by environments, such autonomous vehicles (AVs) and close gaps between functionality and technical adoption/transition, while meeting user satisfaction goals.”), teaches the cabin controls comprise controls for one or more of: window(s) and door(s) of the autonomous vehicle (Marzorati, at least one para. 0017; “An AV can execute functions and set various settings and controls based on such directives. The particular settings/functions available for user-input-based control can vary across AVs. Examples include, but are not limited to, controls/functions of opening and closing windows and doors, locking and unlocking doors, multimedia (audio/video) device settings such as volumes and play selections, climate (air conditioning/heat) control, ‘infotainment’ settings, prioritization of destination/stops, preferred routes, disabling various drive controls, enabling/disabling lights, calling emergency phone numbers, etc.”).
Talamonti and Marzorati are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cabin controls of Talamonti with the teaching of Marzorati. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cabin controls can include door(s) and window(s).
Regarding claim 18, Talamonti teaches (Original) the autonomous vehicle of claim 1: (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 54-55; “the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode”)
wherein the cabin controls comprise controls for one or more of: an air conditioner, a heater, a seat heater, a seat cooler, (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 63-67; “The computer 110 may include programming to operate one or more of vehicle brakes, propulsion (e.g., control of acceleration in the vehicle by controlling one or more of an internal combustion engine, electric motor, hybrid engine, etc.), steering, climate control, interior and/or exterior lights, etc.”)a seat massager, a window defroster, a vehicle infotainment system, and a touchscreen user interface (Talamonti, Col. 3, line 21; “The user interface device 140 can include a touch screen”).
Regarding claim 19, Talamonti teaches (Currently Amended) A method of managing cabin controls for an autonomous vehicle, comprising: (Talamonti, Col. 1, lines 54-55; “the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode”)
receiving a remote cabin control command via a wireless communication circuit from a remote autonomous vehicle operator (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 32-37; “The network 190 represents one or more mechanisms by which the computer 110 and the remote computer 180 may communicate with each other, and may be one or more of various wired or wireless communication mechanisms, including any desired combination of wired”);
receiving a local cabin control command from a passenger of the autonomous vehicle via a user interface and/or hardware controls (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 30-32; “the computer 110 may be configured for communicating through a vehicle-to-infrastructure (V-to-I) interface with a remote computer 180 via a network 190.”);
performing control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 48-52; “instructions stored in the memory and executed by the computer 110 is programming for operating one or more vehicle 100 components, e.g., braking, steering, propulsion, etc., without intervention of a human operator.”), (Talamonti Col. 1, lines 54-55; the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode); and
performing control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 48-52; “instructions stored in the memory and executed by the computer 110 is programming for operating one or more vehicle 100 components, e.g., braking, steering, propulsion, etc., without intervention of a human operator.”) operating in semi-autonomous mode (Talamonti Col. 1, lines 54-55; the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode); and
causing actuators to perform a cabin control action in response to a result of the control regulation (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 57-64; “the computer 110 may include programming to regulate vehicle operational behaviors such as speed, acceleration, deceleration, steering, etc., as well as tactical behaviors such as a distance between vehicles and/or amount of time between vehicles, lane-change minimum gap between vehicles, left-turn-across-path minimum, time-to-arrival at a particular location, intersection (without signal) minimum time-to-arrival to cross the intersection, etc.”).
Even though Talamonti teaches about the instant condition wherein the autonomous vehicle is operating in semi-autonomous mode, Talamonti fails to explicitly teach by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination, the control regulation prioritizing the local cabin control command over the remote cabin control command
Bangslund, in the same field of endeavor (Bangslund, at least one para. 0002; “unmanned remote-controlled and optionally partially autonomously operating container ships”), teaches by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination (Bangslund, at least one para. 0103-0104; “The ship control unit 204 receives the pilot control information. In step 608 the pilot control information is verified before the ship control unit 204 sends commands to the one or more maneuvering units. The step of verifying the pilot control information determines whether the instructions are in principle correct and do not affect the safety of the container ship 1. In some embodiments the ship control unit 204 sends the pilot control information to the pilot control information check module 344. The module 344 checks the pilot control information with the navigation module 346 and the collision avoidance module 348 to determine that the container ship will not collide with objects or navigate out of a navigable waterway based on the instructions in the pilot control information. The step of verifying the pilot control information 608 can be used with the embodiment discussed in reference to FIG. 5. This means that verification step 608 can be carried out before the helmsman adjusts the course and speed of the container ship 1.”, in other words, Bangslund teaches how the remote cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules), the control regulation prioritizing the local cabin control command over the remote cabin control command (Bangslund, at least one para. 0091; “In some embodiments the ship control interface 350 comprises an input for overriding the pilot control instructions. In this way the captain can override and reject the pilot control instructions as shown in step 524”) and (Bangslund, at least one para. 0091; “the captain may know that the container ship 1 cannot react quickly enough and the captain has not received a suitable pilot control information from the remote control center 18. Accordingly, the captain can override the pilot control information and navigate the container ship 1 using alternative means”).
The combination of Talamonti and Bangslund are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Bangslund. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can be safely controlled during a network outage without any interruptions or without compromising any safety standards with respect to the remote cabin control command.
Even though the combination of Talamonti and Bangslund teaches about “how the remote cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules”, the combination of Talamonti and Bangslund fails to explicitly teach “how the local cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules”.
Marzorati, in the same field of endeavor (Marzorati, at least one para. 0014; “Described herein are approaches to add intelligence to services and functions provided by environments, such autonomous vehicles (AVs) and close gaps between functionality and technical adoption/transition, while meeting user satisfaction goals.”), teaches by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination (Marzorati, at least one para. 0042; “The determination of whether to perform the input command can therefore be based on the classification of that command. Command classification can account for safety and other factors that might influence appropriateness of performing a command in various contexts, beyond just the prioritization levels of the users involved. For instance, the classification can account for safety in terms of whether performance of the command is inherently unsafe and should be disallowed. Opening a window of the AV traveling at a high rate of speed may be acceptable if requested by an adult but not a child, while opening a door when traveling at a high rate of speed may be unacceptable as a safety risk no matter the prioritization level of the person who attempts to invoke the command to perform that function. Environmental context encompasses any relevant considerations that may be present at that time, and examples include but are not limited to: number, identity, presence, prioritization levels, preferences, and another other characteristics of AV occupants; current travel conditions (traffic, weather, etc.); navigation, speed, destination information; and safety considerations. As another example of environmental context informing command handling, the vehicle might recognize that it is pouring rain outside and therefore to reject the command of an occupant (or occupants with lower than a threshold prioritization level) to open a window while the rain persists.”, in other words, Marzorati teaches how the local cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules)
The combination of Talamonti, Bangslund, and Marzorati are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Marzorati. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can be safely controlled with respect to set prioritization levels or hierarchy levels for occupants of the vehicle without compromising any safety standards with respect to the local cabin control command.
Regarding claim 20, Talamonti teaches (Currently Amended) one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions to instruct an autonomous vehicle controller of an autonomous vehicle to (Talamonti Col. 1, lines 54-55; the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode):
receive a remote cabin control command via a wireless communication circuit from a remote autonomous vehicle operator (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 32-37; “The network 190 represents one or more mechanisms by which the computer 110 and the remote computer 180 may communicate with each other, and may be one or more of various wired or wireless communication mechanisms, including any desired combination of wired”); and
receive a local cabin control command from a passenger of the autonomous vehicle via a user interface and/or hardware controls (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 30-32; “the computer 110 may be configured for communicating through a vehicle-to-infrastructure (V-to-I) interface with a remote computer 180 via a network 190.”);
perform control regulation of the remote cabin control command and the local cabin control command (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 48-52; “instructions stored in the memory and executed by the computer 110 is programming for operating one or more vehicle 100 components, e.g., braking, steering, propulsion, etc., without intervention of a human operator.”) comprising the autonomous vehicle operating in semi-autonomous mode (Talamonti Col. 1, lines 54-55; the vehicle 100 in an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or non-autonomous mode); and
causing actuators to perform a cabin control action in response to a result of the control regulation (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 57-64; “the computer 110 may include programming to regulate vehicle operational behaviors such as speed, acceleration, deceleration, steering, etc., as well as tactical behaviors such as a distance between vehicles and/or amount of time between vehicles, lane-change minimum gap between vehicles, left-turn-across-path minimum, time-to-arrival at a particular location, intersection (without signal) minimum time-to-arrival to cross the intersection, etc.”).
Even though Talamonti teaches about the instant condition wherein the autonomous vehicle is operating in semi-autonomous mode, Talamonti fails to explicitly teach by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination, and wherein the local cabin control command overrides the remote cabin control command
Bangslund, in the same field of endeavor (Bangslund, at least one para. 0002; “unmanned remote-controlled and optionally partially autonomously operating container ships”), teaches by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination (Bangslund, at least one para. 0103-0104; “The ship control unit 204 receives the pilot control information. In step 608 the pilot control information is verified before the ship control unit 204 sends commands to the one or more maneuvering units. The step of verifying the pilot control information determines whether the instructions are in principle correct and do not affect the safety of the container ship 1. In some embodiments the ship control unit 204 sends the pilot control information to the pilot control information check module 344. The module 344 checks the pilot control information with the navigation module 346 and the collision avoidance module 348 to determine that the container ship will not collide with objects or navigate out of a navigable waterway based on the instructions in the pilot control information. The step of verifying the pilot control information 608 can be used with the embodiment discussed in reference to FIG. 5. This means that verification step 608 can be carried out before the helmsman adjusts the course and speed of the container ship 1.”, in other words, Bangslund teaches how the remote cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules) and wherein the local cabin control command overrides the remote cabin control command (Bangslund, at least one para. 0091; “In some embodiments the ship control interface 350 comprises an input for overriding the pilot control instructions. In this way the captain can override and reject the pilot control instructions as shown in step 524”) and (Bangslund, at least one para. 0091; “the captain may know that the container ship 1 cannot react quickly enough and the captain has not received a suitable pilot control information from the remote control center 18. Accordingly, the captain can override the pilot control information and navigate the container ship 1 using alternative means”).
The combination of Talamonti and Bangslund are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Bangslund. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can be safely controlled during a network outage without any interruptions or without compromising any safety standards with respect to the remote cabin control command.
Even though the combination of Talamonti and Bangslund teaches about “how the remote cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules”, the combination of Talamonti and Bangslund fails to explicitly teach “how the local cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules”.
Marzorati, in the same field of endeavor (Marzorati, at least one para. 0014; “Described herein are approaches to add intelligence to services and functions provided by environments, such autonomous vehicles (AVs) and close gaps between functionality and technical adoption/transition, while meeting user satisfaction goals.”), teaches by validating each command against a set of legal and safety compliance rules using real-time sensor data and automatically rejecting any command that would result in a violation of a legal regulation or safety compliance rule as determined by real-time sensor data, prior to any override determination (Marzorati, at least one para. 0042; “The determination of whether to perform the input command can therefore be based on the classification of that command. Command classification can account for safety and other factors that might influence appropriateness of performing a command in various contexts, beyond just the prioritization levels of the users involved. For instance, the classification can account for safety in terms of whether performance of the command is inherently unsafe and should be disallowed. Opening a window of the AV traveling at a high rate of speed may be acceptable if requested by an adult but not a child, while opening a door when traveling at a high rate of speed may be unacceptable as a safety risk no matter the prioritization level of the person who attempts to invoke the command to perform that function. Environmental context encompasses any relevant considerations that may be present at that time, and examples include but are not limited to: number, identity, presence, prioritization levels, preferences, and another other characteristics of AV occupants; current travel conditions (traffic, weather, etc.); navigation, speed, destination information; and safety considerations. As another example of environmental context informing command handling, the vehicle might recognize that it is pouring rain outside and therefore to reject the command of an occupant (or occupants with lower than a threshold prioritization level) to open a window while the rain persists.”, in other words, Marzorati teaches how the local cabin control command is complying with the set of legal and safety rules)
The combination of Talamonti, Bangslund, and Marzorati are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the autonomous vehicle of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the perform control regulation of Talamonti with the teaching of Marzorati. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the vehicle can be safely controlled with respect to set prioritization levels or hierarchy levels for occupants of the vehicle without compromising any safety standards with respect to the local cabin control command.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talamonti, Bangslund, and Marzorati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20210191398).
Regarding claim 4, Talamonti teaches (Original) The autonomous vehicle of claim 1, wherein the instructions (Talamonti, Col. 2, lines 48-51; “generally included in instructions stored in the memory and executed by the computer 110 is programming for operating one or more vehicle 100 components.”) are further to: cause a rider service request to be transmitted to an autonomous vehicle operator; and receive the remote cabin control command as a response to the rider service request.
However, Talamonti does not explicitly teach cause a rider service request to be transmitted to an autonomous vehicle operator; and receive the remote cabin control command as a response to the rider service request.
Chan, in the same field of endeavor (Chen, at least one para. 0002; “The present disclosure relates generally to autonomous vehicles”), teaches cause a rider service request to be transmitted to an autonomous vehicle operator; (Chen, at least one para.0021; “The remote assistance service can be implemented by a remot