DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the arguments filed October 29th, 2025. Claims 1-20 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, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previous cited of record Hayashi et al. (US Pub. No. 20220266871 A1), herein after Hayashi, and further in view of previous cited of record Rossano et al. (US Pub. No. 20120150436 A1), herein after Rossano.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi 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 (Hayashi: Para. 0050, teaching a remote support system for an autonomous vehicle; and Para. 0062 and 0063, teaching processors and memories configured to perform the various processes 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 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); generating… 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: one or more of a position or orientation, and a period of time (Hayashi: Para. 0006, teaching the remote support system determining whether or not the vehicle is likely to collide with an object that can be avoided; and Para. 0016 and 0017, teaching that the autonomous driving device generates speed plans for the vehicle to follow in response to the potential for collision which includes instructions for the vehicle to stop at a desired position and time); and transmitting, from the remote computer system, the intermittent stopping action message to the autonomous vehicle, 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 position or orientation, and hold the one or more of position and orientation for the period of time such that the vehicle moves to or is at the one or more of position or orientation prior to the event occurring (Hayashi: Para. 0138, teaching that a remote operator controls a vehicle based an updated trajectory which is on the conditions around a vehicle such that the vehicle can travel through the environment safely; and Para. 0136, teaching that part of the control includes having the vehicle wait behind another vehicle until the second vehicle moves so that the first vehicle does not collide with the second vehicle).
Hayashi does not explicitly teach that the generation is done by the remote computer system however Hayashi does go on to teach in paragraph 0097 that all of the functions of the autonomous driving control device can be performed by the remote support system for the benefit of optimizing the timing between when a remote operator is made aware that remote control is required and when the remote operator can take over.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the generation of the speed plans of Hayashi to be done by the remote support system for the benefit of optimizing the timing between when a remote operator is made aware that remote control is required and when the remote operator can take over.
Hayashi is silent to causing a display to display a representation of the autonomous vehicle.
In a similar field, Rossano teaches causing a display to display a representation of the autonomous vehicle (Rossano: Para. 0012, teaching displaying a graphical symbol of the vehicle in a display screen) for the benefit of clearly communicating where the vehicle is to the driver.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the event based handover control of the vehicle to a remote operator from Hayashi to display the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle on a display, as taught by Rossano, for the benefit of clearly communicating where the vehicle is to the driver.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 1, and Hayashi 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 (Hayashi: Para. 0015 and 0016, teaching that the first and second speed plans are generated to control the vehicle such that it stops before colliding with an object and is based on the current speed of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi and Rossano 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, Hayashi and Rossano 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 6, Hayashi and Rossano remain as applied as in claim 4, and Hayashi goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 4, wherein the operations comprise: receiving, from the autonomous vehicle, a request to continue along the route (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); receiving a response to the request indicative of allowing the autonomous vehicle to proceed; and transmitting the response to the autonomous vehicle, wherein the condition is receipt of the response (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) and Rossano goes on to further teach causing the display to display the request (Rossano: Para. 0017, teaching displaying information on an event along the travel route of the vehicle; and Para. 0023, teaching displaying information relevant to a travel route).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Rossano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Moustafa et al. (US Pub. No. 20220126878), herein after Moustafa.
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi 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 event based handover systems and methods from Hayashi in view of Rossano 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.
Claims 7-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previous cited of record Park et al. (US Pub. No. 20220073108), herein after Park, as evidenced by Park.
Regarding claim 7, Park 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 (Park: Para. 0078-0080, teaching that information on the state, location, and environment around a vehicle are transmitted to a control server 30; and Para. 0088, teaching that the information on the environment includes information on an event around the vehicle such as an obstacle is detected that may collide with the vehicle); generating,… based at least in part on an identification of the event, a message comprising one or more of a position or an orientation (Park: Para. 0123, teaching the control server that generates a driving route and speed for a vehicle; and Para. 0124, teaching that the autonomous vehicle controls the vehicle according to the driving information from the control server based on a determination of whether there are obstacles around the vehicle); and transmitting the message from the remote computer device to the vehicle, 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 one or more of a period of time has elapsed or a condition is met, 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 (Park: Para. 0077-0079, teaching that the control server transmits messages to the vehicle that contain instructions to move the vehicle including instructions to stop at a desire position; and Para. 0131, teaching that the stop can be a temporary emergency stop that ends after the detected event that triggered the stop has been resolved or a new route has been received from the remote operator).
Park does not explicitly teach that the message is generated at the remote server, however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Park teaching that the operations of the vehicle can be performed remotely (Para. 0107) for the benefit of reducing errors caused by manual operations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to have the identification of the event in Park be performed remotely along with the generation of the message, for the benefit of reducing errors caused by manual operations.
Regarding claim 8, Park remains as applied as in claim 7 goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7, comprising: receiving, from the vehicle, a request to proceed; one or more of receiving or determining a response to the request; and transmitting the response to the vehicle, wherein the condition comprises receipt of the response by the vehicle (Park: Para. 0131, teaching that the vehicle transmit a request to restart driving and the control server determining whether to transmit a response to allow the vehicle to drive if there is no event that would cause an accident).
Regarding claim 9, Park remains as applied as in claim 7 goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle executing a trajectory along a route, and the condition comprises a determination that the autonomous vehicle is able to proceed safely along the route (Park: Para. 0131, teaching that the vehicle transmit a request to restart driving and the control server determining whether to transmit a response to allow the vehicle to drive if there is no event that would cause an accident).
Regarding claim 10, Park remains as applied as in claim 9 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 (Park: Para. 0019 and 0025, teaching that the control server collects information regarding the position and speed of the vehicle and surrounding objects and generates driving instructions based on the collected information; and Para. 0026 and 0031, teaching that the driving instructions includes commands to stop within a minimum safe distance if collision is predicted with an object).
Regarding claim 13, Park remains as applied as in claim 7 goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7 wherein generating the message precedes a time associated with the event (Park: Para. 0111, teaching that the event can be predicted in advance).
Regarding claim 14, Park 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 and data associated with an event in the environment (Park: Para. 0140, teaching that the invention can be implemented through known computer components such as recording mediums programmed to perform the claimed invention; Para. 0078-0080, teaching that information on the state, location, and environment around a vehicle are transmitted to a control server 30; and Para. 0088, teaching that the information on the environment includes information on an event around the vehicle such as an obstacle is detected that may collide with the vehicle); generating,… based at least in part on an identification of the event, a message comprising one or more of a position or an orientation (Park: Para. 0123, teaching the control server that generates a driving route and speed for a vehicle; and Para. 0124, teaching that the autonomous vehicle controls the vehicle according to the driving information from the control server based on a determination of whether there are obstacles around the vehicle); and transmitting the message from the remote computer device to the vehicle, 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 position or orientation until one or more of a period of time has elapsed or a condition is met, 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 (Park: Para. 0077-0079, teaching that the control server transmits messages to the vehicle that contain instructions to move the vehicle including instructions to stop at a desire position; and Para. 0131, teaching that the stop can be a temporary emergency stop that ends after the detected event that triggered the stop has been resolved or a new route has been received from the remote operator).
Park does not explicitly teach that the message is generated at the remote server, however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Park teaching that the operations of the vehicle can be performed remotely (Para. 0107) for the benefit of reducing errors caused by manual operations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to have the identification of the event in Park be performed remotely along with the generation of the message, for the benefit of reducing errors caused by manual operations.
Regarding claim 15, Park remains as applied as in claim 14 goes on to further teach [t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise: receiving, from the vehicle, a request to proceed; one or more of receiving or determining a response to the request; and transmitting the response to the vehicle, wherein the condition comprises receipt of the response by the vehicle (Park: Para. 0131, teaching that the vehicle transmit a request to restart driving and the control server determining whether to transmit a response to allow the vehicle to drive if there is no event that would cause an accident).
Regarding claim 16, Park remains as applied as in claim 14 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 (Park: Para. 0131, teaching that the vehicle transmit a request to restart driving and the control server determining whether to transmit a response to allow the vehicle to drive if there is no event that would cause an accident; and Para. 0020, teaching that the position of the vehicle can be determined using global positioning systems).
Regarding claim 17, Park remains as applied as in claim 14 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 (Park: Para. 0019 and 0025, teaching that the control server collects information regarding the position and speed of the vehicle and surrounding objects and generates driving instructions based on the collected information; and Para. 0026 and 0031, teaching that the driving instructions includes commands to stop within a minimum safe distance if collision is predicted with an object).
Regarding claim 20, Park remains as applied as in claim 14 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 (Park: Para. 0111, teaching that the event can be predicted in advance).
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Moustafa.
Regarding claim 11, Park remains as applied as in claim 7, however Park is 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 handover system for an autonomous vehicle that warns the driver and other vehicles of the handover via video, audio, tactile, or other forms of alerts) for the benefit of improving the safety of a handover event.
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 handover for autonomous control from Park to alert the driver, passengers, and other vehicles of the handover event, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the safety of a handover event.
Regarding claim 12, Park remains as applied as in claim 7, however Park is 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 event based handover systems and methods from Park 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, Park remains as applied as in claim 14, however Park is 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 handover system for an autonomous vehicle that warns the driver and other vehicles of the handover via video, audio, tactile, or other forms of alerts) for the benefit of improving the safety of a handover event.
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 handover for autonomous control from Park to alert the driver, passengers, and other vehicles of the handover event, as taught by Moustafa, for the benefit of improving the safety of a handover event.
Regarding claim 19, Park remains as applied as in claim 14, however Park is 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 event based handover systems and methods from Park 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 October 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed October 29th, 2025 with respect to the 103 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 10 line 10 through page 11 line 5, filed October 29th, 2025) that the remote support system of Hayashi is not equivalent to the remote computer system claimed as the remote support system of Hayashi is a system that is found onboard a vehicle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that paragraph 0052 of Hayashi teaches that “the remote support system 100 includes the vehicles 10 and a remote control device 2. The remote control device 2 includes a remote server 4 and a remote operator interface 6 for the remote operator to perform input operations for remote control”. Furthermore, the examiner notes that paragraph 0097 of Hayashi establishes that all of the operations of autonomous driving control device can be executed in a remote server, thus the remote support system of Hayashi does read on a remote computer system that is not onboard a vehicle.
Applicant contends (see page 11 lines 6-18, filed October 29th, 2025) that paragraphs 0006, 0016, and 0017 of Hayashi cited does not teach that the generation of the speed plans are done remotely and rather that the generation is done by the autonomous driving control device 40. The examiner respectfully agrees but notes that this limitation is taught by Hayashi. The examiner notes that, while the cited paragraphs of Hayashi are directed towards an autonomous driving control device, paragraph 0097 of Hayashi establishes that all of the operations of autonomous driving control device can be executed in a remote server, thus one ordinarily skilled in the art could be motivated to modify Hayashi to have the generations of speed plans be done remotely. The examiner notes that the 103 rejection of independent claim 1 has been updated accordingly to reflect this.
Applicant contends (see page 11 line 25 through page 12 line 7, filed October 29th, 2025) that dependent claims 2-6 are allowable as the claim they depend upon have been rendered allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as independent claim 1 has not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record the dependent claims stand to fall with the claim they depend upon.
Applicant contends (see page 12 line 29 through page 13 through line 14, filed October 29th, 2025) that Park is silent to a message [which] configures the vehicle to move to the one or more of the position or orientation and that the cited paragraphs 0077-0079 and 0131 relate to different aspects. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that paragraph 0079 of Park recites that the driving information includes “at least one of a destination, a driving route, a vehicle driving speed, starting ON/OFF, start/stop, or emergency stop for the unmanned transfer from the control server 30” (emphasis added), which combined with paragraphs 0131 which teaches executing an emergency stop, shows that the prior art of Park does teach the claimed message [which] configures the vehicle to move to the one or more of the position or orientation.
Applicant contends (see page 12 line 29 through page 13 through line 14, filed October 29th, 2025) that Park is silent to “the message configures the vehicle to hold ‘the one of more of the position or the orientation until one or more of a period of time has elapsed or a condition is met’”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the BRI of the claimed “” can be found in the applicant’s specification in page 6 paragraph 0019 as “a determination that the autonomous vehicle is able to proceed safely along the route” such as “a likelihood of the route being obstructed by other objects within the environment” which reads on paragraph 0131 of Park which teaches that the emergency stop ends once the obstacle that caused the stop is removed or a restart driving route is received.
Applicant contends (see page 13 line 18 and page 14 line 2, filed October 29th, 2025) that dependent claims 8-13 and 15-20 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 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
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