DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE amendments filed on 04/10/2026.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are examined.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
102/103 Rejection
The 102 rejection is withdrawn, however the claims are reevaluated in light of the amendments.
Further, with regards to claim 1, Applicant states prior art Gates does not disclose the amended claim limitations of:
generating and displaying a natural language question that relates to one or more characteristics of the obstacle or a proposed navigation strategy for circumventing the obstacle, the question prompting action from an operator to modify lane availability to assist the vehicle to overcoming the detected obstacle and enabling selection form among available lane modifications options
Applicant specifies with respect to the “natural language question” limitation, Gates implementation may be of soft buttons for generating a close lane command [pgs. 8-9 of remarks]. Applicant states that they do not change in regard to obstacle characteristics or a proposed navigation strategy and therefore could not be obvious variants to a “natural language question that relates… to an obstacle or a proposed navigation strategy…”, since the generic buttons of Gates remain the same regardless of the specific obstacle encountered and do not relate to the obstacle characteristics or proposed navigation strategy. Examiner disagrees by the following rationale.
First, the claim limitations do not exclude buttons that “do not change”. Instead the claim states that, the natural language question relates to one or more characteristics of the obstacle or a proposed navigation strategy… . The soft buttons of Gates, “Close Lane” or “Open Lane” are a form of natural language prompts that are at least functional equivalents of a question, further with regards to asking an operator if either of those options are necessary due to the detected obstacles in the lane [see at least Fig. 6.356,358]. Second, closing a lane or opening a lane (when obstacle is determined to have been removed/fixed), is a type of proposed navigation strategy for circumventing the obstacle.
Applicant points to details given as possible embodiments in the specification [¶ 31], such as, "this lane is blocked,”, “switch to this lane,” , “move one lane left/right”. These example natural language “questions” are noted as simple statement prompts. Further the example doesn’t show a “?” either. Both the prompts in the current application and prior art Gates, are using natural language (English), and similarly the prompts are both functionally causing a lane switch based on how the operator answers these prompts. details than the Examiner. If there are specifics the Applicant intends for the claim, it is recommended to add such language to the claims. To help promote prosecution, Examiner will additionally prior art.
The Applicant states for the limitation, “the human operator can directly select a lane represented in the display in order to adjust the vehicle’s ability to use…” is not disclosed by prior art Gates. Again, seeing at least Fig. 6, Gates gives an operator the option to directly open or close a specific lane.
PNG
media_image1.png
747
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gates [col 21: 1-7] states, “it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…”. If this is the options presented to the operator, it is understood the operator does indeed interact directly with a map representation. Using screen soft buttons are still a way of interacting with the map representation. Even if clicking on the lane itself is what is intended, that is still just an obvious variation as the intended result is substantially the same. This is very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform as it requires nothing substantially different to perform the same outcome (touching a selection button next to the lane or the lane itself to perform the selection is an obvious variation/design choice).
Finally for claim 1, the Applicant states Gates fails to disclose the technical chain recited in the claim, generating a natural language question, receiving operator input selecting a lane on the representation…, and electronically updating the onboard map to enable the vehicle‘s navigation. It is not clear how this is not understood. Gates Fig. 7 shows:
PNG
media_image2.png
686
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It what other order would this system function if it was to work? The operator is first given an option to close a lane (based on detected obstacles, shown in Fig. 6). The system would not be very good if lanes were closed with no rhyme or reason or if obstacles were not detected in the lanes. The entire purpose is to update maps to a fleet to have up to date information and effective routing. If it didn’t function in that technical chain, the system of Gates would not be viable.
Applicant states for claim 13 and 21, additional prior art Su does not cure Gates deficiencies. Su is not needed to disclose such limitations as discussed for claim 1. Applicant then states that:
The claimed invention, by contrast, involves a remote operator selecting a second vehicle on the representation of the environment and providing instructions to follow that vehicle for a threshold duration or distance to circumvent an identified obstacle. Su's autonomous lane-following logic is not designed to handle this scenario, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Su' s system to solve the problem of remote decision-making for obstacle circumvention.
Su is not disclosed to cover all the limitations of the current invention however, instead Su is disclosed for purposes to show that autonomous vehicle control parameters are understood to be able to be given certain commands such as following distance/duration. Such combination would be understood in the art, as they are both control schemes for autonomous vehicles and any combination would be for giving desired driving features to improve usefulness of said systems.
The rejections are reevaluated in light of the amendments.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pat. No. 11560154 (“Gate”) and alternatively, in further view of US 20190019349 (“Dolgov”).
As per claim 1 Gate discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, location information and sensor data from a vehicle [abstract: teleoperations system to modify elements in the mapping data (teleoperations is understood a two-way comm.), Fig. 1 remote vehicle service 178], wherein the vehicle is autonomously navigating a path on a road in an environment [Fig. 1 Autonomous vehicle (hardware), Fig. 4.258 Initiate streaming of session data, including autonomy sensor, telemetry and video data], and wherein the computing device is positioned remote from the vehicle [col 13:48-51 to propagate data collected during a teleoperation session, Fig. 1B centralized server (remotely from vehicle), Fig. 4];
based on the location information and the sensor data, displaying, by the computing device and on a display interface, a representation of the environment of the vehicle, wherein the representation of the environment shows an obstacle in the path of the vehicle and conveys lane information for the road [ Fig. 6 close lane, open lane (shown on display), Fig. 14];
based on detecting the obstacle in the path of the vehicle, generating and displaying a natural language prompt that relates to one or more characteristics of the obstacle or a proposed navigation strategy for circumventing the obstacle, the question prompting action from an operator to modify lane availability to assist the vehicle in overcoming the detected obstacle and enabling selection from among available lane modification options; [col 15:20-35 autonomous vehicle may initially detect a condition that triggers a desire for teleoperations monitoring… for example, a detection by a detector… potential conditions that may be sensed and used to trigger monitoring includes construction zones… , col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…, Fig. 4.252 Identify condition triggering teleoperations monitoring (for an autonomous vehicle), Fig. 4.254 Request session, Fig. 4.262 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 6, Fig. 14];
receiving, at the computing device and from the operator, a first input selecting a first lane of the road on the representation of the environment [Fig. 6 (see additionally remarks above under response to arguments regarding the interpretations of this limitation)], wherein the first input modifies an availability of the first lane of the road for subsequent navigation by an onboard navigation system of the vehicle by electronically updating a map used by the onboard navigation system of the vehicle, thereby enabling the onboard navigation system to navigate based on the modified lane availability information [col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…, Fig. 4.252 Identify condition triggering teleoperations monitoring (for an autonomous vehicle), Fig. 4.254 Request session, Fig. 4.262 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 6, Fig. 14, Fig. 7 Autonomous vehicle, receive map alterations command]; and
providing, by the computing device, navigation instructions to the vehicle based on the modified availability of the first lane of the road [Fig. 7 Autonomous vehicle, receive map alterations command], the modification having been made in response to the detected obstacle to guide the vehicle around the detected obstacle [col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane when determining a path or trajectory for the vehicle along the roadway], and wherein the vehicle continues navigation on the road according to the navigation instructions to circumvent the detected obstacle. [col 1:60-65 facilitating interaction between an autonomous vehicle and a teleoperations system… modify elements in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle, col 21:1-7 mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane when determining a path or trajectory for the vehicle along the roadway, Fig. 4 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 7.418 Resume normal path generation and execution].
The claim states, “a first input selecting a first lane of the road on the representation of the environment”. Gates discloses a map representation of an environment that an operator interacts with to augment future navigation routes [Fig. 6]. The operator uses soft buttons Fig. 6.364, 366… as inputs to modify the lane availability. Fig.6 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
747
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The included action list, is still understood as part of a representation of the environment (and at least an obvious variation of a map environment for interaction with). As these are map options presented to the operator, it is understood the operator does interact directly with a map representation. Using screen soft buttons are still a way of interacting directly with the map representation. Further, if clicking on the lane itself is more the intended interpretation, although not explicit with Gates, however, would be an obvious variation as the intended result is substantially the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the use of a soft touch button next to a lane selection for alteration to touching the lane itself to perform the same alteration as it would be an obvious matter of design choice and only require routine skill in the art to perform as it requires nothing substantially different to generate the same outcome for desired map interactions.
Gates is not explicit to stating a generated/displayed question, in a formal sense, as in not displaying a question mark however the options selections found given to operator is understood as an obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art, as a type of questionnaire prompt to what an operator’s desire, as a selection would apply the same operations to a system with a triggered state where further input is required by the autonomous system to generate solutions to further navigate unique scenarios improving safety and reliability (functional equivalent). Examiner’s Note: When looking into the specification of the Applicant, [¶31] gives examples such as “switch to this lane” while prior art Gates states, “Open lane”. Applicant’s natural language questions closely resembles the prompts of prior art Gates.
Alternatively, Dolgov discloses generating and displaying a natural language question based on a detected object [¶100 the remote computing system may generate a natural-language question based on the attempt to identify the object, and then trigger the remote computing system to display, or otherwise present to the human operator, the natural-language question].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gates teachings of a language prompt selection with a natural language question prompt for identifying desired actions from an operator to a vehicle system as they are functional equivalents creating the same desired outcomes.
As per claim 14 Gate discloses a system comprising:
a vehicle [Fig. 1]; and
a computing device configured to [Fig. 1]:
receive location information and sensor data from a vehicle [abstract: teleoperations system to modify elements in the mapping data (teleoperations is understood a two-way comm.), Fig. 1 remote vehicle service 178], wherein the vehicle is autonomously navigating a path on a road in an environment [Fig. 1 Autonomous vehicle (hardware), Fig. 4.258 Initiate streaming of session data, including autonomy sensor, telemetry and video data], and wherein the computing device is positioned remote from the vehicle [col 13:48-51 to propagate data collected during a teleoperation session, Fig. 1B centralized server (remotely from vehicle), Fig. 4];
based on the location information and the sensor data, display, on a display interface, a representation of the environment of the vehicle, wherein the representation of the environment shows an obstacle in the path of the vehicle and conveys lane information for the path [ Fig. 6 close lane, open lane (shown on display), Fig. 14];
based on detecting the obstacle in the path of the vehicle, generate and display a natural language prompt that relates to one or more characteristics of the obstacle or a proposed navigation strategy for circumventing the obstacle, the question prompting action from an operator to modify lane availability to assist the vehicle in overcoming the detected obstacle and enabling selection from among available lane modification options [col 15:20-35 autonomous vehicle may initially detect a condition that triggers a desire for teleoperations monitoring… for example, a detection by a detector… potential conditions that may be sensed and used to trigger monitoring includes construction zones… , col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…, Fig. 4.252 Identify condition triggering teleoperations monitoring (for an autonomous vehicle), Fig. 4.254 Request session, Fig. 4.262 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 6, Fig. 14];
receive, from the operator, a first input selecting a first lane of the road on the representation of the environment [Fig. 6 (see remarks above under response to arguments regarding the interpretations of this limitation)], wherein the first input modifies an availability of the first lane of the road for subsequent navigation by an onboard navigation system of the vehicle by electronically updating a map used by the onboard navigation system of the vehicle, thereby enabling the onboard navigation system to navigate based on the modified lane availability information [col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…, Fig. 4.252 Identify condition triggering teleoperations monitoring (for an autonomous vehicle), Fig. 4.254 Request session, Fig. 4.262 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 6, Fig. 14, Fig. 7 Autonomous vehicle, receive map alterations command];; and
provide navigation instructions to the vehicle based on the modified availability of the first lane of the road [Fig. 7 Autonomous vehicle, receive map alterations command], the modification having been made in response to the detected obstacle to guide the vehicle around the detected obstacle [col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane when determining a path or trajectory for the vehicle along the roadway], and wherein the vehicle continues navigation on the road according to the navigation instructions to circumvent the detected obstacle. [col 1:60-65 facilitating interaction between an autonomous vehicle and a teleoperations system… modify elements in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle, col 21:1-7 mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane when determining a path or trajectory for the vehicle along the roadway, Fig. 4 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 7.418 Resume normal path generation and execution].
The claim states, “a first input selecting a first lane of the road on the representation of the environment”. Gates discloses a map representation of an environment that an operator interacts with to augment future navigation routes [Fig. 6]. The operator uses soft buttons Fig. 6.364, 366… as inputs to modify the lane availability. Fig.6 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
747
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The included action list, is still understood as part of a representation of the environment (and at least an obvious variation of a map environment for interaction with). As these are map options presented to the operator, it is understood the operator does interact directly with a map representation. Using screen soft buttons are still a way of interacting directly with the map representation. Further, if clicking on the lane itself is more the intended interpretation, although not explicit with Gates, however, would be an obvious variation as the intended result is substantially the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the use of a soft touch button next to a lane selection for alteration to touching the lane itself to perform the same alteration as it would be an obvious matter of design choice and only require routine skill in the art to perform as it requires nothing substantially different to generate the same outcome for desired map interactions.
Gates is not explicit to stating a generated/displayed question, in a formal sense, as in not displaying a question mark however the options selections found given to operator is understood as an obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art, as a type of questionnaire prompt to what an operator’s desire, as a selection would apply the same operations to a system with a triggered state where further input is required by the autonomous system to generate solutions to further navigate unique scenarios improving safety and reliability (functional equivalent). Examiner’s Note: When looking into the specification of the Applicant, [¶31] gives examples such as “switch to this lane” while prior art Gates states, “Open lane”. Applicant’s natural language questions closely resembles the prompts of prior art Gates.
Alternatively, Dolgov discloses generating and displaying a natural language question based on a detected object [¶100 the remote computing system may generate a natural-language question based on the attempt to identify the object, and then trigger the remote computing system to display, or otherwise present to the human operator, the natural-language question].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gates teachings of a language prompt selection with a natural language question prompt for identifying desired actions from an operator to a vehicle system as they are functional equivalents creating the same desired outcomes.
As per claim 20 Gate discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, that when executed by a computing system comprising one or more processors, causes the computing system to perform operations comprising [Fig. 1]:
receiving location information and sensor data from a vehicle [abstract: teleoperations system to modify elements in the mapping data (teleoperations is understood a two-way comm.), Fig. 1 remote vehicle service 178], wherein the vehicle is autonomously navigating a path on a road in an environment [Fig. 1 Autonomous vehicle (hardware), Fig. 4.258 Initiate streaming of session data, including autonomy sensor, telemetry and video data], and wherein the computing system is positioned remote from the vehicle [col 13:48-51 to propagate data collected during a teleoperation session, Fig. 1B centralized server (remotely from vehicle), Fig. 4];
based on the location information and the sensor data, displaying, on a display interface, a representation of the environment of the vehicle, wherein the representation of the environment shows an obstacle in the path of the vehicle and conveys lane information for the road [ Fig. 6 close lane, open lane (shown on display), Fig. 14];
based on detecting the obstacle in the path of the vehicle, generating and displaying a natural language prompt that relates to one or more characteristics of the obstacle or a proposed navigation strategy for circumventing the obstacle, the question prompting action from an operator to modify lane availability to assist the vehicle in overcoming the detected obstacle and enabling selection from among available lane modification options [col 15:20-35 autonomous vehicle may initially detect a condition that triggers a desire for teleoperations monitoring… for example, a detection by a detector… potential conditions that may be sensed and used to trigger monitoring includes construction zones… , col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…, Fig. 4.252 Identify condition triggering teleoperations monitoring (for an autonomous vehicle), Fig. 4.254 Request session, Fig. 4.262 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 6, Fig. 14];
receiving, from the operator, a first input selecting a first lane of the road on the representation of the environment [Fig. 6 (see remarks above under response to arguments regarding the interpretations of this limitation)], wherein the first input modifies an availability of the first lane of the road for subsequent navigation by an onboard navigation system of the vehicle by electronically updating a map used by the onboard navigation system of the vehicle, thereby enabling the onboard navigation system to navigate based on the modified lane availability information [col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane…, Fig. 4.252 Identify condition triggering teleoperations monitoring (for an autonomous vehicle), Fig. 4.254 Request session, Fig. 4.262 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 6, Fig. 14, Fig. 7 Autonomous vehicle, receive map alterations command]; and
providing, by the computing device, navigation instructions to the vehicle based on the modified availability of the first lane of the road [Fig. 7 Autonomous vehicle, receive map alterations command], the modification having been made in response to the detected obstacle to guide the vehicle around the detected obstacle [col 21:1-7 it may be desirable to permit a teleoperations system operator to mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane when determining a path or trajectory for the vehicle along the roadway], and wherein the vehicle continues navigation on the road according to the navigation instructions to circumvent the detected obstacle. [col 1:60-65 facilitating interaction between an autonomous vehicle and a teleoperations system… modify elements in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle, col 21:1-7 mark that lane as closed in the mapping data used by an autonomous vehicle. By doing so, the autonomous vehicle will avoid that lane when determining a path or trajectory for the vehicle along the roadway, Fig. 4 Receive operator input and communicate to vehicle, Fig. 7.418 Resume normal path generation and execution].
The claim states, “a first input selecting a first lane of the road on the representation of the environment”. Gates discloses a map representation of an environment that an operator interacts with to augment future navigation routes [Fig. 6]. The operator uses soft buttons Fig. 6.364, 366… as inputs to modify the lane availability. Fig.6 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
747
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The included action list, is still understood as part of a representation of the environment (and at least an obvious variation of a map environment for interaction with). As these are map options presented to the operator, it is understood the operator does interact directly with a map representation. Using screen soft buttons are still a way of interacting directly with the map representation. Further, if clicking on the lane itself is more the intended interpretation, although not explicit with Gates, however, would be an obvious variation as the intended result is substantially the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the use of a soft touch button next to a lane selection for alteration to touching the lane itself to perform the same alteration as it would be an obvious matter of design choice and only require routine skill in the art to perform as it requires nothing substantially different to generate the same outcome for desired map interactions.
Gates is not explicit to stating a generated/displayed question, in a formal sense, as in not displaying a question mark however the options selections found given to operator is understood as an obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art, as a type of questionnaire prompt to what an operator’s desire, as a selection would apply the same operations to a system with a triggered state where further input is required by the autonomous system to generate solutions to further navigate unique scenarios improving safety and reliability (functional equivalent). Examiner’s Note: When looking into the specification of the Applicant, [¶31] gives examples such as “switch to this lane” while prior art Gates states, “Open lane”. Applicant’s natural language questions closely resembles the prompts of prior art Gates.
Alternatively, Dolgov discloses generating and displaying a natural language question based on a detected object [¶100 the remote computing system may generate a natural-language question based on the attempt to identify the object, and then trigger the remote computing system to display, or otherwise present to the human operator, the natural-language question].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gates teachings of a language prompt selection with a natural language question prompt for identifying desired actions from an operator to a vehicle system as they are functional equivalents creating the same desired outcomes.
As per claim 2 Gate discloses further comprising:
receiving a second input selecting a second lane of the road, wherein the second input modifies an availability of the second lane of the road during subsequent navigation by the vehicle [col 22:55-60 to represent a lane closure status for one or more lanes, Fig. 8, 10, 14]; and wherein providing navigation instructions to the vehicle comprises: providing navigation instructions based on the availability of both the first lane and the second lane [Fig. 9 generate and execute path based upon open lane, Fig. 6, Fig. 10].
As per claim 3 Gate discloses further comprising:
providing an indication with the representation of the environment that conveys a selection of a given lane of the road labels the given lane as unavailable during subsequent navigation by the vehicle [Fig. 8.364 “close lane”]; and
responsive to receiving the first input selecting the first lane of the road, determining that the first lane in the path is unavailable for subsequent navigation by the onboard navigation system of the vehicle for at least a threshold distance from a current location of the vehicle or for at least a threshold duration of time [col 3:60-64 alteration command is associated with a spatial extent that defines a length of roadway subject to a map alteration (defined length/threshold), Fig. 7.402 Receive operator input to close lane (optionally specifying end of closure), Fig. 7.404 Store event as training data, propagate to fleet and/or schedule session for another vehicle to reassess, Fig. 7.420 Periodically reassess condition lane closure, optionally initiate new session].
As per claim 4 Gate discloses further wherein providing the indication with the representation of the environment comprises: providing text or audio that conveys the selection of the given lane of the road labels the given lane unavailable during subsequent navigation [Fig. 6.364 “close lane”].
As per claim 5 Gate discloses further comprising:
providing an indication with the representation of the environment that conveys a selection of a given lane of the road labels the given lane as available during subsequent navigation by the vehicle [Fig. 9 generate and execute path based on open lane, Fig. 10.66 “open lane”]; and
responsive to receiving the first input selecting the first lane of the road, determining that the first lane is available for subsequent navigation by the vehicle for at least a threshold distance from a current location of the vehicle or for at least a threshold duration of time [Fig. 9.444 Store event as training data, propagate to fleet and/or schedule session for another vehicle to reassess, Fig. 9.460 Periodically reassess condition that triggered lane open, optionally initiate new session].
As per claim 6 Gate discloses further wherein receiving location information and sensor data from the vehicle comprises:
receiving a request for assistance from the vehicle, wherein the request for assistance includes the location information and images from a vehicle camera system [Fig. 4, 250 autonomous vehicle, 254 request session, 258 initiate streaming of session data, including autonomy sensor, telemetry and video data].
As per claim 7 Gate discloses further wherein displaying the representation of the environment of the vehicle comprises:
displaying the images from the vehicle camera system, wherein the images depict one or more obstacles in the environment of the vehicle [col 7:15-30 a primary sensor system… a digital camera… may be used to sense stationary and moving objects within the immediate vicinity of a vehicle, col 13:15-20 a graphical depiction of the immediate vicinity around a vehicle may be generated for display to a teleoperations operator (based on sensor system), Fig. 5].
As per claim 8 Gate discloses further comprising:
identifying the one or more obstacles in the environment [col 22:47-55 view of the vehicle and its environment… representations of various other dynamic objects or actors (e.g. construction barrels), Fig. 6];
determining at least one obstacle from the one or more obstacles is located in the first lane and in the path of the vehicle [Fig. 6, Fig. 8]; and
providing a suggestion for modifying availability of the first lane based on determining that the at least one obstacle is located in the first lane and in the path of the vehicle [Fig. 6.370 “Virtual Path Suggestion”].
As per claim 9 Gate discloses further comprising:
identifying the one or more obstacles in the environment [col 22:47-55 view of the vehicle and its environment… representations of various other dynamic objects or actors (e.g. construction barrels), Fig. 6.356];
determining at least one obstacle from the one or more obstacles is located in the first lane and in the path of the vehicle; automatically modifying availability of the first lane in the path based on determining that the one or more obstacles are located in the first lane and in the path of the vehicle [Fig. 8.380]; and
displaying the representation of the environment with an indication of the modified availability of the first lane [Fig. 6, Fig. 8].
As per claim 10 Gate discloses further comprising:
responsive to receiving the first input selecting the first lane of the road, displaying the representation of the environment with an indication of the modified availability for the first lane of the road [Fig. 8.382].
As per claim 11 Gate discloses further wherein displaying the representation of the environment with the indication of the modified availability for the first lane comprises:
displaying the first lane in a color that differentiates the first lane from other lanes in the path [col 22:60-65 some implementations to indicate that the shoulder is effectively closed, e.g., using a predetermined color or pattern that visually indicates the status…, Fig. 8].
As per claim 12 Gate discloses further comprising: receiving a second input selecting a particular area on the representation of the environment [Fig. 13.542 wait for further operator input]; and
based on receiving the second input, providing navigation instructions to the vehicle based on the availability of the first lane of the road and the second input selecting the particular area, wherein the vehicle is configured to determine whether the particular area on the representation is suitable for performing a pull-over maneuver [col 26:40-45 may ascertain from the streamed context that a construction worker or police officer is directing vehicles onto the shoulder for travel is an appropriate response, col 31:22-26 Then in a third phase, a stop and hold may be performed to the vehicle to a stop, Fig. 13.544 perform stop and hold at end of path (it is understood that the system, if the situation arises, can perform a pull-over maneuver)].
As per claim 15 Gate discloses further wherein the representation of the environment depicts the first lane in a first color and a second lane in a second color [col 22:60-65 some implementations to indicate that the shoulder is effectively closed, e.g., using a predetermined color or pattern that visually indicates the status… (if one lane is colored differently to show closure, then that would mean the other lanes would be in a different color not showing closure), Fig. 8].
As per claim 16 Gate discloses further wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive, from the vehicle, images depicting a forward path of the vehicle [Fig. 5.330]; and
wherein the representation of the environment conveys the forward path of the vehicle based on the images [Fig. 5.330].
As per claim 17 Gate discloses further wherein the computing device is further configured to: detect the obstacle in the forward path of the vehicle [Fig. 6.356]; and
augment the representation of the environment to indicate a location of the obstacle relative to the vehicle [col 22:47-55 view of the vehicle and its environment… representations of various other dynamic objects or actors (e.g. construction barrels), Fig. 6.356].
As per claim 18 Gate discloses further wherein the computing device is further configured to display an indication that a second lane on the road is unavailable for selection based on the location of the obstacle relative to the vehicle [Fig. 8.380 and 362].
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 11560154 (“Gate”) in further view of US 20150177007 (“Su”).
As per claim 13 Gate discloses further comprising:
based on displaying the representation of the environment, receiving a given input that selects a scenario or intended action in the environment of the vehicle [col 17: 60-65 operator input… autonomous vehicle can follow a scenario recommended, col 18:54-55 its current intended actions (e.g. follow)]; and
based on receiving the given input that selects the scenario or intended action, providing instructions to the vehicle to follow [col 17: 60-65 operator input… autonomous vehicle can follow a scenario recommended, col 18:54-55 its current intended actions (e.g. follow)].
Gate is silent to selecting a second vehicle to follow a given duration or distance.
Su discloses further a second vehicle to follow a given duration or distance [abstract: identify a vehicle ahead with the same driving route and destination (navigate around road with no markings), Fig. 2 to given destination (given duration)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gate with the teachings of Su to incorporate autonomous driving features of following a vehicle on a road for purposes of efficiently and safety traveling with traffic by sharing driving maneuvers on the same path of travel.
As per claim 21 Gate discloses further wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive a second input that selects a second vehicle in the environment [Fig. 2 Operations/Fleet interface 230]; and
based on receiving the second input, provide instructions to the vehicle to follow the second vehicle [col 17: 60-65 operator input… autonomous vehicle can follow a scenario recommended, col 18:54-55 its current intended actions (e.g. follow)].
Gate is silent to selecting a second vehicle to follow a threshold duration or a threshold distance.
Su discloses further a second vehicle to follow a threshold duration or distance [abstract: identify a vehicle ahead with the same driving route and destination (navigate around road with no markings), Fig. 2 to given destination (given duration)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gate with the teachings of Su to incorporate autonomous driving features of following a vehicle on a road for purposes of efficiently and safety traveling with traffic by sharing driving maneuvers on the same path of travel.
Additional Art to Consider
Application Pub. No US 2019/0316919 titled, HIERARCHICAL ROUTE GENERATION, PROVISION, AND SELECTION, also discloses an autonomous driving system that is in communication with a centralized server detailing lane/route details for the autonomous vehicle driving on the given road. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s reliance a centralized navigation engine for route planning that is based on vehicle sensor data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
