DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed June 15th, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 16-23 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran et al. (US Pub. No. 20180284771 A1), herein after Ravichandran, and further in view of previous cited of record Hayashi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220266871 A1), herein after Hayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Ravichandran teaches [a] system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Ravichandran: Para. 0044, teaching processors and a memory with instructions to control the processor to perform the steps of the invention): receiving, at a remote computer system, data from an autonomous vehicle traversing an environment along a route in accordance with a planned trajectory… (Ravichandran: Para. 0089, teaching that sensor data from an autonomous vehicle are transmitted to a remote server); causing a display to display a representation of the autonomous vehicle (Ravichandran: Para. 0110, teaching displaying the current location of a vehicle with a projected trajectory); generating, at the remote computer system, and based at least in part on one or more of the remote computer system or a remote operator associated with the remote computer system identifying the event, an intermittent stopping action message comprising (Ravichandran: Para. 0114, teaching generating or receiving from a remote server or teleoperator a command to stop the vehicle in response to an identified event or a stop request): one or more of a position or orientation, and a period of time (Ravichandran: Para. 0101, teaching that the stop request can include a target stopping place, a degree of urgency, and/or an expected stopping time interval in which the vehicle remains at the target stopping place and then determining a trajectory to the target stopping place); and transmitting, from the remote computer system, the intermittent stopping action message to the autonomous vehicle (Ravichandran: Para. 0100, teaching that the information related to the stop request can be transmitted by the teleoperator or remote server), wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to determine an updated trajectory comprising the one or more of the position or orientation, move to the one or more of the position or orientation, and hold the one or more of the position or orientation for the period of time such that the vehicle moves to or is at the one or more of the position or orientation prior to the event occurring (Ravichandran: Para. 0101, teaching that the stop request can include a target stopping place, a degree of urgency, and/or an expected stopping time interval in which the vehicle remains at the target stopping place and then determining a trajectory to the target stopping place).
Ravichandran is silent to receiving, at a remote computer system… data associated with an event within the environment.
In a similar field, Hayashi teaches receiving, at a remote computer system, data from an autonomous vehicle traversing an environment along a route in accordance with a planned trajectory and data associated with an event within the environment (Hayashi: Para. 0068, teaching that a remote support system receives data on events and the environment around a vehicle; and Para. 0076 and 0077, teaching that the data received by the remote support system includes information on the trajectory of the vehicle) for the benefit of improving the ability for a remote operator to command the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the control of an autonomous vehicle to stop due to an event from Ravichandran to transmit information on the event to a remote operator, as taught by Hayashi, for the benefit of improving the ability for a remote operator to command the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 1, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the position or the orientation is within a stopping range of the autonomous vehicle defined by a minimum stopping distance determined based on a current speed of the autonomous vehicle (Ravichandran: Para. 0148-0150, teaching determining a proximity region which represents the closest stopping places to the vehicle that matches the requirements of the stopping request and is based on factors such as the vehicle's speed).
Regarding claim 4, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 1, and Hayashi goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise: determining, at the remote computer system, that the vehicle is able to proceed safely along the route (Hayashi: Para. 0013, teaching that the vehicle continues on if it is determined that it will not collide with an object).
Regarding claim 5, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 4, and Hayashi goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 4, wherein the operations comprise: transmitting to the vehicle an instruction to proceed along the route, wherein the vehicle is configured to proceed along the route in response to receiving the instruction (Hayashi: Para. 0103, teaching that the vehicle travels along the generated speed plans which includes continuing along the travel route if no collision is predicted).
Regarding claim 7, Ravichandran teaches [a] method comprising: receiving, at a remote computer device and from a vehicle, data associated with the vehicle traversing an environment and data associated with an event in the environment (Ravichandran: Para. 0089, teaching that sensor data from an autonomous vehicle are transmitted to a remote server); generating, at the remote computer device and based at least in part on an identification of the event, a message comprising (Ravichandran: Para. 0114, teaching generating or receiving from a remote server or teleoperator a command to stop the vehicle in response to an identified event or a stop request) one or more of a position or an orientation (Ravichandran: Para. 0101, teaching that the stop request can include a target stopping place, a degree of urgency, and/or an expected stopping time interval in which the vehicle remains at the target stopping place and then determining a trajectory to the target stopping place); and transmitting the message from the remote computer device to the vehicle (Ravichandran: Para. 0100, teaching that the information related to the stop request can be transmitted by the teleoperator or remote server), wherein the message configures the vehicle to move to the one or more of the position or the orientation and to hold the one or more of the position or the orientation until a period of time has elapsed, such that the vehicle moves to or is at the one or more of the position or the orientation prior to the event occurring within the environment (Ravichandran: Para. 0101, teaching that the stop request can include a target stopping place, a degree of urgency, and/or an expected stopping time interval in which the vehicle remains at the target stopping place and then determining a trajectory to the target stopping place).
Ravichandran is silent to receiving, at a remote computer device and from a vehicle… data associated with an event in the environment.
In a similar field, Hayashi teaches receiving, at a remote computer device and from a vehicle, data associated with the vehicle traversing an environment and data associated with an event in the environment (Hayashi: Para. 0068, teaching that a remote support system receives data on events and the environment around a vehicle; and Para. 0076 and 0077, teaching that the data received by the remote support system includes information on the trajectory of the vehicle) for the benefit of improving the ability for a remote operator to command the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the control of an autonomous vehicle to stop due to an event from Ravichandran to transmit information on the event to a remote operator, as taught by Hayashi, for the benefit of improving the ability for a remote operator to command the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 7, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle executing a trajectory along a route (Ravichandran: Para. 0028, teaching autonomously controlling the vehicle to follow a trajectory).
Regarding claim 10, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 9, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 9, wherein the position or the orientation is within a stopping range of the vehicle, the stopping range having a minimum corresponding to the minimum stopping distance of the vehicle based at least in part on a current speed of the autonomous vehicle (Ravichandran: Para. 0148-0150, teaching determining a proximity region which represents the closest stopping places to the vehicle that matches the requirements of the stopping request and is based on factors such as the vehicle's speed).
Regarding claim 13, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 7, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7 wherein generating the message precedes a time associated with the event (Ravichandran: Para. 0100, teaching that the information related to the event such as the time it would occur can be transmitted by the teleoperator or remote server).
Regarding claim 14, Ravichandran teaches [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, at a remote computer device and from a vehicle, data associated with the vehicle traversing an environment (Ravichandran: Para. 0089, teaching that sensor data from an autonomous vehicle are transmitted to a remote server);
Ravichandran is silent to receiving, at a remote computer device and from a vehicle… data associated with an event in the environment.
In a similar field, Hayashi teaches receiving, at a remote computer device and from a vehicle, data associated with the vehicle traversing an environment and data associated with an event in the environment (Hayashi: Para. 0068, teaching that a remote support system receives data on events and the environment around a vehicle; and Para. 0076 and 0077, teaching that the data received by the remote support system includes information on the trajectory of the vehicle) for the benefit of improving the ability for a remote operator to command the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the control of an autonomous vehicle to stop due to an event from Ravichandran to transmit information on the event to a remote operator, as taught by Hayashi, for the benefit of improving the ability for a remote operator to command the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 14, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle executing a trajectory along a route and the position or the orientation is defined in a world frame of reference and wherein the operations comprise: calculating a distance between a current position of the autonomous vehicle and at least one of the position or orientation in the world frame of reference; and updating the trajectory to include an intermittent stop at the distance (Ravichandran: Para. 0081, teaching that the position and heading of the vehicle is based on sensor data collected from a variety of sources such as GPS; and Para. 0101, teaching generating a route from the vehicle's location to the target stopping place).
Regarding claim 17, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 14, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the position or the orientation is within a stopping range of the vehicle, the stopping range having a minimum corresponding to the minimum stopping distance of the vehicle based at least in part on a current speed of the vehicle (Ravichandran: Para. 0148-0150, teaching determining a proximity region which represents the closest stopping places to the vehicle that matches the requirements of the stopping request and is based on factors such as the vehicle's speed).
Regarding claim 20, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 14, and Ravichandran goes on to further teach [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein generating the message precedes a time associated with the event (Ravichandran: Para. 0100, teaching that the information related to the event such as the time it would occur can be transmitted by the teleoperator or remote server).
Regarding claim 21, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 1, and Ravichandran [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to proceed along the updated trajectory once the period of time has elapsed without awaiting further communication from the remote computer system (Ravichandran: Para. 0097, teaching that the autonomous vehicle receives information about the presence of an emergency vehicle, stops the autonomous vehicle, and resumes travel of the autonomous vehicle after the emergency vehicle passes).
Regarding claim 22, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 7, and Ravichandran [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the vehicle proceeds along an updated trajectory once the period of time has elapsed without awaiting further communication from the remote computer device (Ravichandran: Para. 0097, teaching that the autonomous vehicle receives information about the presence of an emergency vehicle, stops the autonomous vehicle, and resumes travel of the autonomous vehicle after the emergency vehicle passes).
Regarding claim 23, Ravichandran and Hayashi remain as applied as in claim 14, and Ravichandran [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise causing the vehicle to proceed along an updated trajectory once the period of time has elapsed without awaiting further communication from the remote computer device (Ravichandran: Para. 0097, teaching that the autonomous vehicle receives information about the presence of an emergency vehicle, stops the autonomous vehicle, and resumes travel of the autonomous vehicle after the emergency vehicle passes).
Claims 3, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran in view of Hayashi as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Moustafa et al. (US Pub. No. 20220126878), herein after Moustafa.
Regarding claim 3, Ravichandran and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise: determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the autonomous vehicle and the data associated with the event and the planned trajectory, a likelihood that the autonomous vehicle will encounter the event; causing the display to display an indication of the likelihood.
In a similar field, Moustafa teaches [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise: determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the autonomous vehicle and the data associated with the event and the planned trajectory, a likelihood that the autonomous vehicle will encounter the event; causing the display to display an indication of the likelihood (Moustafa: Para. 0090, teaching determining the likelihood of an event to occur while driving and notifying the driver of the likelihood of the event to occur) for the benefit of improving the ability to respond to potential collisions.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the emergency stop based on a detected event from Ravichandran in view of Hayashi to also consider whether an event is possible to occur, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the ability to respond to potential collisions.
Regarding claim 11, Ravichandran and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 7, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the message configures the vehicle to perform one or more of: emit, as a passenger communication, one or more of an audio message or a video message internal to the vehicle, emit, as a pedestrian communication, one or more of a light or sound external to the vehicle, or initiate display of hazard lighting.
In a similar field, Moustafa teaches [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the message configures the vehicle to perform one or more of: emit, as a passenger communication, one or more of an audio message or a video message internal to the vehicle, emit, as a pedestrian communication, one or more of a light or sound external to the vehicle, or initiate display of hazard lighting (Moustafa: Para. 0090 and 0165, teaching a system for an autonomous vehicle to pull-over the vehicle that warns the driver and other vehicles of the pull-over via video, audio, tactile, or other forms of alerts) for the benefit of improving the safety of pull-overs.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the emergency pull-over routing based on a detected event Ravichandran in view of Hayashi to alert the driver, passengers, and other vehicles of the emergency stop, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the safety of pull-overs.
Regarding claim 12, Ravichandran and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 7, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 7 comprising: receiving, based at least in part on the data associated with the vehicle and the data associated with the event, a likelihood associated with the vehicle encountering the event.
In a similar field, Moustafa teaches [t]he method of claim 7 comprising: receiving, based at least in part on the data associated with the vehicle and the data associated with the event, a likelihood associated with the vehicle encountering the event (Moustafa: Para. 0090, teaching determining the likelihood of an event to occur while driving and notifying the driver of the likelihood of the event to occur) for the benefit of improving the ability to respond to potential collisions.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the emergency stop based on a detected event from Ravichandran in view of Hayashi to also consider whether an event is possible to occur, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the ability to respond to potential collisions.
Regarding claim 18, Ravichandran and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 14, however they are silent to [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise: causing emittance of, as a passenger communication, one or more of an audio message or a video message internal to the vehicle; or causing emittance of, as a pedestrian communication, one or more of a light or sound external to the vehicle; or initiating display of hazard lighting.
In a similar field, Moustafa teaches [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise: causing emittance of, as a passenger communication, one or more of an audio message or a video message internal to the vehicle; or causing emittance of, as a pedestrian communication, one or more of a light or sound external to the vehicle; or initiating display of hazard lighting (Moustafa: Para. 0090 and 0165, teaching a system for an autonomous vehicle to pull-over the vehicle that warns the driver and other vehicles of the pull-over via video, audio, tactile, or other forms of alerts) for the benefit of improving the safety of pull-overs.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the emergency pull-over routing based on a detected event Ravichandran in view of Hayashi to alert the driver, passengers, and other vehicles of the emergency stop, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the safety of pull-overs.
Regarding claim 19, Ravichandran and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 14, however they are silent to [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise: determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the vehicle and the data associated with the event, a likelihood associated with the vehicle encountering the event.
In a similar field, Moustafa teaches [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise: determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the vehicle and the data associated with the event, a likelihood associated with the vehicle encountering the event (Moustafa: Para. 0090, teaching determining the likelihood of an event to occur while driving and notifying the driver of the likelihood of the event to occur) for the benefit of improving the ability to respond to potential collisions.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the emergency stop based on a detected event from Ravichandran in view of Hayashi to also consider whether an event is possible to occur, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the ability to respond to potential collisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 15th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 103 in view of Hayashi in further view of Rossano and 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 in view of Park have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ravichandran in further view of Hayashi.
Applicant contends (see page 11 line 26 through page 13 line 19, filed June 15th, 2026) that dependent claims 2-5, 9-13 and 16-23 are allowable as the claims they depend upon have been rendered allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as independent claims 1, 7, and 14 have not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record the dependent claims stand to fall with the claims they depend upon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kummel et al. (US Pub. No. 20220126880 A1) discloses an autonomous vehicle that enters emergency maneuvers as needed and the maneuvers last for a period of time.
Olson et al. (US Pub. No. 20210046926 A1) discloses an autonomous vehicle whose trajectory is being constantly updated with some trajectories being emergency stops and each trajectory being monitored for whether they have been completed and each trajectory has a duration of time.
Hara et al. (US Pub. No. 20200283022 A1) discloses an autonomous vehicle that plans stops along the route where the vehicle will remain at a stop for a period of time to recharge before autonomously continuing its travel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
