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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25-MAR-2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received by the Office on 25-MAR-2026. Claims 1-20 have been presented in the application, of which, 1, 5, 6, and 15 currently amended, claim 2, 3, 4, 7-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18-20 are original. Accordingly, pending claims 1-20 are addressed herein.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 25-MAR-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25-MAR-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered. The amendments change the scopes of the claims and a new 103 rejection in light of Kim et al. (US 2024/0124031 A1; priority document KR-20240053746-A) can be seen below.
Additionally, Applicant requests proof of the priority of reference Yeom (US 20240101159 A1) on Page 12. The priority document is KR- 20220122935-A.
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, 2, 4, 6-9, 13-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogna (US 20210144152 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0124031 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gogna teaches: A system comprising: one or more processors (element 106); one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors (element 120; Paragraph [35]), wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraph [21]) comprising: transmitting, to a remote computing device, (Figure 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; element 170, 180, 160, 140) first data associated with operation (Paragraph [18], “For example, the sensor data 134 may include a location signal (e.g., a GPS signal or sensor data indicative of a pose of the autonomous vehicle relative to a map), an inertia signal…”; Paragraph [20], “In some examples, the sensor data 134 may be sent, via the network 156, to the teleoperating system 170... The teleoperating system 170 may share the display with one or more computing devices 180(1)-180(y) associated with the user(s) 160(1)-160(x), respectively”) of the autonomous vehicle in the autonomous driving mode or the one of the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous mode within an environment (element 102; Interpreting as the alternative with reference to “or”, where the autonomous vehicle is only in the autonomous driving mode) receiving a disengage request or an engage request (Paragraph [69-70], "the teleoperation system 170 may instruct the autonomous vehicle to switch from the authority channel 302A to a guidance channel 302B"), the disengage request or an engage request comprising first validity data that confirms location information associated with causing the autonomous vehicle to transition between the autonomous driving mode (Figure 5, 6; element 502; Paragraph [65], “In yet another example, when the guidance includes information associated with the static zone, the computing device 104 may determine at least one of whether the static zone overlaps the position of the autonomous vehicle 102”); determining that the first validity data meets or exceeds a threshold, wherein a value of the threshold varies based on a request type associated with the request (Paragraph [45] "The pre-set configuration data may define one or more parameters associated with the operation of the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., speed, acceleration, planned trajectory, static zone, etc.) and one or more thresholds and/or ranges associated with the one or more parameters"); determining, based at least in part on the first validity data meeting or exceeding the threshold, a second validity associated with the request (Figure 5, 6; element “yes”); and based at least in part on the second validity associated with the request, one or more of generating a confirmation message to the first computing device (Figure 4, 5; element 306, "feedback message"); and causing the autonomous vehicle to transition (element 308; Paragraph [83]), or transmitting, to the remote computing device, a message rejecting the disengage request or the engage request (Figure 2, 4, 5, 6; element 310, "feedback message", 622; Paragraph [83]).
While Gogna teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
a request for guidance associated with transitioning an autonomous vehicle between an autonomous driving mode and one of a manual driving mode or a semi-autonomous driving mode
and the mode one of the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous mode
However, Kim et al. teaches: a request to cause the autonomous vehicle system to transition between an autonomous driving mode and one of a manual driving mode or semi-autonomous driving mode …and the mode one of the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous mode… (Paragraph [5], “Generally, when the driving mode of the autonomous vehicle is transited from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode in response to a driver's request”; Interpreting as the alternative with reference to “or”, where the request comprises only the manual driving mode)… transition to the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous driving mode (Figure 4; element S113; Interpreting as the alternative with reference to “or”, where the request comprises only the manual driving mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the validity determination for switching autonomous vehicle operation mode of Gogna to include the ability to process requests to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode as taught by Kim et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: validity determination for requests to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode of an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, while Gogna teaches wherein a determining the second validity comprises determining whether the autonomous vehicle is able to safely engage in the mode (element 502, 602; Paragraph [59, 83], “When the guidance does not comply with a state of the autonomous vehicle 102, the computing device(s) 104 may reject the message at operation 310... In another example, when the autonomous vehicle 102 detects an object in the pathway and requests yield reclassification, a teleoperation message is generated providing one or more new points in the trajectory causing the autonomous vehicle 102 to drive straight. The computing device(s) 104 may reject the teleoperation message”).
While Gogna teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
determining whether the autonomous vehicle is able to safely engage the manual driving mode other than or the semi-autonomous driving mode as requested
However, Kim et al. teaches teaches: determining whether the autonomous vehicle is able to safely engage the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous driving mode as requested (Figure 4, S110, S116; Interpreting as the alternative with reference to “or”, where the request comprises only the manual driving mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the validity determination for requests to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode of an autonomous vehicle of Gogna and Kim et al. to include the determination that that the vehicle is at safe distances as taught by Kim et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the validity determination for requests to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode of an autonomous vehicle, the validity including the determination that the vehicle is at safe distances.
Regarding claim 4, Gogna teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein determining the second validity comprises determining whether a vehicle location is within a geographical region (element 502; Paragraph [14], “location data of the autonomous vehicle… geofence data (e.g., data indicative of a limited geographic area)”) and determining whether the autonomous vehicle is moving at or below a threshold speed (element 502; Paragraph [64]).
Regarding claim 6, Gogna teaches: A method comprising: receiving, from the first computing device, a request to cause the second computing device to perform the action (Figure 4, 5; element "teleoperation message"; Paragraph [69-70], "the teleoperation system 170 may instruct the autonomous vehicle to switch from the authority channel 302A to a guidance channel 302B"), the request comprising first validity data indicative of the request satisfying a first set of conditions associated with one or more of a user of the first computing device or the request (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 304; Paragraph [87, 60], “The messages generated by the users to provide guidance to the autonomous vehicle may be automatically enclosed with identification information the user, e.g., a signature of the user. By way of example but not limitation, the signature of the user may be encrypted a public key infrastructure (PKI), a private key infrastructure, a public key/private key pair, a hash of the data bytes of the message, a globally unique identifier (GUID), or any combination thereof...The tag validator 148 may decrypt the signature from the message using shared public key, private key, hash code, or GUID and verify whether the signature matches the one stored in the directory of users”); determining, by the second computing device, a second validity associated with the request and based on a second set of conditions, the second set of conditions different from the first set of conditions (Figure 5, 6; element 402, 502, 602) and associated at least with an environment around the second computing device (Paragraph [15, 59, 83], “When the guidance does not comply with a state of the autonomous vehicle 102, the computing device(s) 104 may reject the message at operation 310... In another example, when the autonomous vehicle 102 detects an object in the pathway and requests yield reclassification, a teleoperation message is generated providing one or more new points in the trajectory causing the autonomous vehicle 102 to drive straight. The computing device(s) 104 may reject the teleoperation message”); and based at least in part on the first validity data and the second validity, one of: causing the second computing device to perform the action (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 308) wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action is based at least in part on the second validity meeting or exceeding a threshold (Paragraph [45] "The pre-set configuration data may define one or more parameters associated with the operation of the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., speed, acceleration, planned trajectory, static zone, etc.) and one or more thresholds and/or ranges associated with the one or more parameters"), or refraining from causing the second computing device to perform the action (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 310, 604).
While Gogna teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
querying a first computing device in association with causing a second computing device to perform an action comprising transitioning between an autonomous mode and a disengaged autonomous mode
However, Kim et al. teaches: querying a first computing device (element 112) in association with causing a second computing device (element 100) to perform an action comprising transitioning between an autonomous mode and a disengaged autonomous mode (Paragraph [44])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the validity determination for switching autonomous vehicle operation mode of Gogna to include the ability to process requests from a driving mode selection switch to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode using an autonomous driving controller as taught by Kim et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: validity determination for the ability to process requests from a driving mode selection switch to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode using an autonomous driving controller.
Regarding claim 7, Gogna teaches: The method of claim 6, further comprising one or more of: rejecting the request based on the second validity (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 310), or transmitting a notification indicative of the second validity to the first computing device (Figure 2, 4, 5, 6; element "feedback message", 622).
Regarding claim 8, Gogna teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein determining the second validity further comprises one or more of determining whether the request is associated with an authenticated user (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 402; Paragraph [40], “The guidance gateway component 138 may determine which channel is currently designated to communicate messages between the computing devices 104 of the autonomous vehicle 102 and the teleoperating system 170 or the computing device(s) 180(1)-180(y)”; Paragraph [19], “computing devices 180(1)-180(y) associated with the user(s) 160(1)-160(x)”), determining whether a format of the request comports with a valid format (Paragraph [42], "the guidance gateway component 138 may further determine whether the message is transmitted over a designated channel for communicating messages between the computing devices 104 of the autonomous vehicle 102 and the teleoperating system 170 or the computing device(s) 180(1)-180(y)"), determining whether the second computing device is able to perform the action (element 502; Paragraph [14]), or determining whether a status of the second computing device is one of a set of allowed statuses (element 602; Paragraph [15, 83], “In some examples, the computing device of the autonomous vehicle may determine that the message complies with state information associated with the autonomous vehicle”).
Regarding claim 9, Gogna teaches: The method of claim 6, further comprising conveying an acknowledgement to the first computing device, the acknowledgement comprising indication that the second computing device is performing or will perform the action (Figure 4, 5; element 306, "feedback message").
Regarding claim 13, Gogna teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the first computing device is a remote computing device (Figure 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; element 170, 180, 160, 140) and the second computing device is associated with an autonomous vehicle (element 102), (Paragraph [69-70], "the teleoperation system 170 may instruct the autonomous vehicle to switch from the authority channel 302A to a guidance channel 302B").
Regarding claim 14, Gogna teaches: The method of claim 6, further comprising conveying an acknowledgement to the first computing device indicating that the second computing device is changing or will change a state of the second computing device based on the second validity (Figure 4, 5; element 306, "feedback message").
Regarding claim 15, Gogna teaches: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (element 120) executable by one or more processors (element 106), wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraph [21]) comprising: receiving, from the first computing device (element 170, 180, 160, 140), a request to cause the second computing device (element 102) to perform the action (Figure 4, 5; element "teleoperation message"; Paragraph [69-70], "the teleoperation system 170 may instruct the autonomous vehicle to switch from the authority channel 302A to a guidance channel 302B"), the request comprising first validity data indicative of the request satisfying a first set of conditions associated with one or more of a user of the first computing device or the request (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 304; Paragraph [87, 60], “The messages generated by the users to provide guidance to the autonomous vehicle may be automatically enclosed with identification information the user, e.g., a signature of the user. By way of example but not limitation, the signature of the user may be encrypted a public key infrastructure (PKI), a private key infrastructure, a public key/private key pair, a hash of the data bytes of the message, a globally unique identifier (GUID), or any combination thereof...The tag validator 148 may decrypt the signature from the message using shared public key, private key, hash code, or GUID and verify whether the signature matches the one stored in the directory of users”) determining, by the second computing device, a second validity associated with the request and based on a second set of conditions, the second set of conditions different from the first set of conditions (Figure 5, 6; element 402, 602) and associated with an environment around the second computing device (Paragraph [15, 59, 83], “When the guidance does not comply with a state of the autonomous vehicle 102, the computing device(s) 104 may reject the message at operation 310... In another example, when the autonomous vehicle 102 detects an object in the pathway and requests yield reclassification, a teleoperation message is generated providing one or more new points in the trajectory causing the autonomous vehicle 102 to drive straight. The computing device(s) 104 may reject the teleoperation message”); and based at least in part on the first validity and the second validity, one of: causing the second computing device to perform the action (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 308), wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action is based at least in part on the second validity meeting or exceeding a threshold (Paragraph [45] "The pre-set configuration data may define one or more parameters associated with the operation of the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., speed, acceleration, planned trajectory, static zone, etc.), or refraining from causing the second computing device to perform the action (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 310, 604).
While Gogna teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
querying a first computing device in association with causing a second computing device to perform an action comprising transitioning between an autonomous mode and a disengaged autonomous mode
However, Kim et al. teaches: querying a first computing device (element 112) in association with causing a second computing device (element 100) to perform an action comprising transitioning between an autonomous mode and a disengaged autonomous mode (Paragraph [44])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the validity determination for switching autonomous vehicle operation mode of Gogna to include the ability to process requests from a driving mode selection switch to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode using an autonomous driving controller as taught by Kim et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: validity determination for the ability to process requests from a driving mode selection switch to switch to a manual mode from an autonomous mode using an autonomous driving controller.
Regarding claim 16, Gogna teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, the operations further comprising one or more of rejecting the request based on the second validity (Figure 4, 5, 6; element 310); or transmitting a notification indicative of the second validity to the first computing device (Figure 4, 5, 6; element "feedback message", 622).
Regarding claim 17, Gogna teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the first computing device is a remote computing device (Figure 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; element 170, 180, 160, 140) and the second computing device is associated with an autonomous vehicle (element 102)(Paragraph [69-70], "the teleoperation system 170 may instruct the autonomous vehicle to switch from the authority channel 302A to a guidance channel 302B").
Regarding claim 20, Gogna teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the second validity is based at least in part on a state of the second computing device (element 602; Paragraph [15]).
Claims 3, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogna (US 20210144152 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0124031 A1) and in further view Sorensen (US 20210288816A1).
Regarding Claim 3, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 1 (rejected base claim 1) including plural different conditions being used for validity determination, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein determining the second validity comprises determining whether the autonomous vehicle is on a mission or in standby mode
However, Sorensen teaches: The autonomous vehicle system of claim 1, wherein determining the second validity comprises determining whether the autonomous vehicle is on a mission or in standby mode (Paragraph [62]; the mission state is interpreted here as the "prohibited..." "deployed state" referenced, and the standby state interpreted here as a "permitted…" "parked state" or "idle state" referenced).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply determination of the operation status of the autonomous vehicle being on a mission or standby mode as taught by Sorensen as part of Gogna’s plural conditions. Such modification allows for additional conditions to be part of Gogna’s validity determination for switching autonomous vehicle operation mode. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle system wherein the second set of conditions comprises determining whether the autonomous vehicle is on a mission or in standby mode.
Regarding Claim 10, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 6 (rejected base claim 6) including plural different conditions being used for validity determination, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second validity is further based at least in part on a trust score associated with the first computing device
However, Sorensen teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the second validity is further based at least in part on a trust score associated with the first computing device (Paragraph [83, 177], “For instance, the signature verification plugin can determine a reliability score of one or more remote processes of the computing system based, at least in part, on the metrics data. The reliability for a respective remote process, for example, can indicate whether messages received from the respective process are trustworthy.… The signature verification plugin can be configured to forward a message received from a remote process with reliability score over a reliability threshold and discard a message from a remote process with a reliability score under the reliability threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the validity being based in part on a trust score associated with the first computing device as taught by Sorensen as part of Gogna’s plural conditions. Such modification allows for additional conditions to be part of Gogna’s validity determination for switching autonomous vehicle operation mode. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle method wherein the second validity is based at least in part on a trust score associated with the first computing device.
Regarding Claim 18, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 15 (rejected base claim 15) including causing the second computing device to perform an action based on plural validity conditions, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action comprises changing a state of the second computing device based on the second validity
and performing the action based at least in part on a second request conveyed from the first computing device
However, Sorensen teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action comprises changing a state of the second computing device based on the second validity (Paragraph [55], "For example, the internal messages can include an indication of one or more state changes associated with the vehicle computing system and/or one or more processes running on the vehicle computing system") and performing the action based at least in part on a second request conveyed from the first computing device (Paragraph [57]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the second computing device performing the action comprises changing a state of the second computing device based on the second validity, and performing the action based at least in part on a second request conveyed from the first computing device as taught by Sorensen as part of Gogna’s performing an action based on plural conditions. Such modification allows for additional operations along with the action being performed and performing the action based on additional considerations to be a part of Gogna’s action. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle computer-readable media wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action comprises changing a state of the second computing device based on the second validity and performing the action based at least in part on a second request conveyed from the first computing device.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogna (US 20210144152 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0124031 A1) and in further in view Yeom (US 20240101159 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 1 (rejected base claim 1) including plural different conditions being used for validity determination.
Gogna further teaches: determining that the autonomous vehicle is positioned within the zone, wherein causing the autonomous vehicle to transition between the autonomous driving mode… is based at least in part on determining that the autonomous vehicle is positioned within the zone (element 502; Paragraph [14], "geofence data (e.g., data indicative of a limited geographic area)").
While Gogna teaches the limitations stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein causing the autonomous vehicle to transition between the autonomous driving mode and one of the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous driving mode comprises: determining a transition zone; causing the autonomous vehicle to navigate to the transition zone
However, Yeom teaches: The autonomous vehicle system of claim 1, wherein causing the autonomous vehicle to transition between the autonomous driving mode and one of the manual driving mode or the semi-autonomous driving mode comprises: determining a transition zone; causing the autonomous vehicle to navigate to the transition zone (Figure 4; element S116, S118; Paragraph [55-56]; Interpreting as the alternative with reference to “or”, where the request comprises only the manual driving mode).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply determining and navigating to a transition zone as taught by Yeom as part of Gogna and Kim et al.’s determination that the vehicle is within a zone, and performing the action based on this determination. Such modification allows for additional conditions to be part of Gogna’s switching autonomous vehicle operation mode. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle system wherein causing the autonomous vehicle to transition between the modes comprises: determining a transition zone and causing the autonomous vehicle to navigate to the transition zone.
Regarding Claim 12, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 6 (rejected base claim 6), including performing an action based on a request, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein the request comprises an additional action for the second computing device to perform to fulfill the second set of conditions before performing the action
However, Yeom teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the request comprises an additional action for the second computing device to perform to fulfill the second set of conditions before performing the action (Figure 4; element S118; Paragraph [55-56]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the additional action of navigating to a transition zone before performing the action as taught by Yeom as part of Gogna’s performing the action of switching autonomous vehicle mode. Such modification allows for additional safety actions to be part of Gogna’s switching autonomous vehicle operation mode. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle method wherein the request comprises an additional action of the second computing device to perform to fulfill the second set of conditions before performing the action.
Regarding Claim 19, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 15 (rejected base claim 15) including the second computing device performing an action based on validity, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action comprises causing the second computing device to perform one or more additional actions to fulfill the second set of conditions before performing the action
However, Yeom teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein causing the second computing device to perform the action comprises causing the second computing device to perform one or more additional actions to fulfill the second set of conditions before performing the action (Figure 4; element S116, S118; Paragraph [55-56]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the additional actions of determining and navigating to a transition zone before performing the action as taught by Yeom as part of Gogna and Kim et al.’s performing the action of switching autonomous vehicle mode. Such modification allows for additional safety actions to be part of Gogna’s switching autonomous vehicle operation mode. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle computer-readable media wherein causing the second computing device to perform the comprises causing the second computing device to perform one or more additional actions to fulfill the second set of conditions before performing the action.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogna (US 20210144152 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0124031 A1) and in further in view of Sorensen (US 20210288816A1) and in further view Magzimof et al. (US 20200062267 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, while Gogna in view of Kim et al. teaches the limitations set forth above according to claim 6 (rejected base claim 6) including plural different conditions being used for validity determination, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first validity data comprises a first validity score, the first validity score based on the first set of conditions with one or more of the user of the first computing device or the request being met
However, Sorensen teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the first validity data comprises a first validity score (Paragraph [83, 177], “For instance, the signature verification plugin can determine a reliability score of one or more remote processes of the computing system based, at least in part, on the metrics data. The reliability for a respective remote process, for example, can indicate whether messages received from the respective process are trustworthy.… The signature verification plugin can be configured to forward a message received from a remote process with reliability score over a reliability threshold and discard a message from a remote process with a reliability score under the reliability threshold.”), the first validity score based on the first set of conditions with one or more of the user of the first computing device or the request being met (Paragraph [0083], “In some implementations, the signature verification plugin can generate metrics data based on the routing action. The metrics data, for example, can include an indication of the originating sender, the intended recipient, the computing system state, the routing action, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply determining the trustworthiness of a message includes determining a reliability score based on metrics data as taught by Sorensen as part of Gogna and Kim et al.’s plural conditions. Such modification allows for additional conditions associated with trustworthiness of the sender of the request to be part of Gogna’s validity determination for switching autonomous vehicle operation mode. This modification would also have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle method wherein determining the trustworthiness of a message comprises determining a reliability score based on metrics data, including information about the sender.
While Gogna in view of Sorensen teach the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
the first validity score based on a weighted sum
However, Magzimof et al. teaches: the first validity score based on a weighted sum (Paragraph [38], “In an embodiment, the score function S 205 may comprise a weighted linear sum of multiple terms, each determined by a specific operator characteristic: S=Σ.sub.i w.sub.is.sub.i.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an autonomous vehicle that receives a message with identification information of a user and calculates a reliability score based on the information of Gogna, Kim et al., and Sorensen, to include the score being a weighted linear sum of the information as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: an autonomous vehicle that receives a message with identification information of a user and calculates a reliability score by a weighted linear sum of the identification information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/A.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights