DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 14-18 are examined and pending. Claim 16 is currently amended. Claims 2, 5, 12-13, and 19-20 are cancelled. Examiner notes that the independent claims do not have the proper status. The independent claims are not the previously presented claims on 04 March 2026. The claims appear to include a steering wheel and a wiper lever in the list of which the manual input is being applied to.
This communication is final action on merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al (US 20220388524 A1) in view of Wang Hui (CN106274678A).
With respect to claim 1, Roberts discloses a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, sensor data from one or more sensors regarding a passenger compartment of an autonomous vehicle (see at least [0028-0029], [0060], and [0065-0072]); determining, by the one or more processors, and based on the sensor data, that a manual input has been applied to at least one of a component of the autonomous vehicle by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle other than an operator of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0017], [0025], [0036-0039], and [0046-0056], “…dangerous circumstances may occur. The circumstances can include, by way of example, unlatching a seatbelt at an inappropriate time, unlocking/opening a door at an inappropriate time, and/or otherwise interacting with controls or components within the passenger cabin of the vehicle that may impact the safe operation of the vehicle…”, “…the unpermitted actions are interactions by the passenger with the vehicle components that may result in unsafe circumstances…”); and responsive to determination that the manual input has been applied to at least one of the components of the autonomous vehicle, causing, by the one or more processors, a modification to an operation of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0007], [0021], [0060], and [0042-0044], [0082-0084]“…the monitoring system can generate a tiered response that is related to the particular infraction. By way of example, the monitoring system may generate a subtle audible alert for a minor infraction, such as interacting with HVAC controls…”, “the third tier may further include the noted automated controls of the vehicle systems in addition to autonomous control of the vehicle 100 itself, such as emergency pullover or stopping…”); wherein causing the modification to the operation of the vehicle comprises causing the autonomous vehicle to decrease in speed (see at least [0007], [0021], and [0042-0044], “…the monitoring system can generate a tiered response that is related to the particular infraction. By way of example, the monitoring system may generate a subtle audible alert for a minor infraction, such as interacting with HVAC controls…”, “the third tier may further include the noted automated controls of the vehicle systems in addition to autonomous control of the vehicle 100 itself, such as emergency pullover or stopping…”).
However, though Roberts disclose wherein the at least one of the components of the autonomous vehicle impact the safe operation of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0017], [0025], [0036-0039], and [0046-0056], “…dangerous circumstances may occur. The circumstances can include, by way of example, unlatching a seatbelt at an inappropriate time, unlocking/opening a door at an inappropriate time, and/or otherwise interacting with controls or components within the passenger cabin of the vehicle that may impact the safe operation of the vehicle…”,).
Roberts do not specifically disclose wherein the at least one of the components of the autonomous that impact the autonomous vehicle safe operation comprises at least one of a steering wheel, turn signal lever or a gear shift lever, or a wiper lever of the autonomous vehicle.
Wang teaches wherein the at least one of the components of the autonomous that impact the autonomous vehicle safe operation comprises at least one of a steering wheel, turn signal lever or a gear shift lever, or a wiper lever of the autonomous vehicle. (see at least [page 7]) “…Other people can snatch the steering wheel to sound and light alarm. If such dangerous behavior has not stopped, the device will automatically brake the vehicle. Which can effectively solve the dangerous behavior of passengers stealing the driver's steering wheel...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts which teaches determining unsafe interaction with the autonomous vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein the at least one of the components of the autonomous that impact the autonomous vehicle safe operation comprises at least one of a steering wheel, turn signal lever or a gear shift lever, or a wiper lever of the autonomous vehicle. This would be done to effectively solve the dangerous behavior of passengers stealing the driver's steering wheel (see Wang page 7).
With respect to claim 6, Roberts discloses wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises causing the autonomous vehicle to activate a hazard signal of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0042-0044])).
With respect to claim 7, Roberts discloses wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises causing the autonomous vehicle to stop (see at least [0007], [0021], and [0042-0044], “…the monitoring system can generate a tiered response that is related to the particular infraction. By way of example, the monitoring system may generate a subtle audible alert for a minor infraction, such as interacting with HVAC controls…”, “the third tier may further include the noted automated controls of the vehicle systems in addition to autonomous control of the vehicle 100 itself, such as emergency pullover or stopping…”).
With respect to claim 8, Roberts discloses wherein receiving the sensor data from the one or more sensors regarding the passenger compartment of the autonomous vehicle comprises: receiving at least a portion of the sensor data from a camera (see at least [0018], [0028], and [0072]).
With respect to claim 15, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 16, it is a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory storage media that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 18, Roberts do not specifically disclose wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is performed further responsive to determining, based on the sensor data, that the manual input has been applied to the steering wheel by the passenger during autonomous operations of the autonomous vehicle.
Wang teaches wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is performed further responsive to determining, based on the sensor data, that the manual input has been applied to the steering wheel by the passenger during autonomous operations of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [page 7]) “…Other people can snatch the steering wheel to sound and light alarm. If such dangerous behavior has not stopped, the device will automatically brake the vehicle. Which can effectively solve the dangerous behavior of passengers stealing the driver's steering wheel...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts which teaches determining unsafe interaction with the autonomous vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is performed further responsive to determining, based on the sensor data, that the manual input has been applied to the steering wheel by the passenger during autonomous operations of the autonomous vehicle. This would be done to effectively solve the dangerous behavior of passengers stealing the driver's steering wheel (see Wang page 7).
Claims 3-4, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al (US 20220388524 A1) in view of Wang Hui (CN106274678A) in view of Chen et al (US 20210191398 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Roberts discloses wherein the passenger compartment comprises a driver seat and one or more passenger seats (see at least [0031-0032] and [Fig. 4]).
However, Roberts as modified by Wang do not specifically teach wherein the zone comprises the driver seat and excludes the one or more passenger seats.
Chen teaches wherein the zone comprises the driver seat and excludes the one or more passenger seats (see at least [0038-0040], [0063-0064], [0100], [0117], and [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts as modified by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because Roberts is directed to detecting unpermitted actions in a vehicle and responding accordingly and Chen teaches unpermitted actions in a vehicle and triggering a remote request accordingly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Chen wherein the zone comprises the driver seat and excludes the one or more passenger seats. This would be done so that the safety of passengers can be increased, and the damage done to autonomous vehicles can be reduced (see Chen para 0064-0065).
With respect to claim 4, Roberts as modified by Wang do not specifically teach wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is caused further responsive to a determination that an object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion; wherein determining that the object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion comprises: determining that at least one of a person, an animal, or an inanimate object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion.
Chen teaches wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is caused further responsive to a determination that an object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion (see at least [0038-0040], [0063-0064], [0100], [0117], and [0136]); wherein determining that the object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion comprises: determining that at least one of a person, an animal, or an inanimate object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion (see at least [0038-0040], [0063-0064], [0100], [0117], and [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts as modified by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because Roberts is directed to detecting unpermitted actions in a vehicle and responding accordingly and Chen teaches unpermitted actions in a vehicle and triggering a remote request accordingly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Chen wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is caused further responsive to a determination that an object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion; wherein determining that the object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion comprises: determining that at least one of a person, an animal, or an inanimate object entered the zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion. This would be done so that the safety of passengers can be increased, and the damage done to autonomous vehicles can be reduced (see Chen para 0064-0065).
With respect to claim 9, Roberts discloses wherein receiving the sensor data from the one or more sensors regarding the passenger compartment of the autonomous vehicle comprises: receiving at least a portion of the sensor data from at least one of a seat occupancy sensor, or a seat belt sensor (see at least [0031-0032], [0034], and [0050])
With respect to claim 11, Roberts discloses determining that a passenger of the vehicle has at least one of (i) moved from a passenger seat of the autonomous vehicle while the autonomous vehicle is in motion or (ii) unbuckled a seat belt while the autonomous vehicle is in motion (see at least [0007], [0017], [0019-0021], [0038-0040], [0043], and [0058]), and wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is further based on the determination that the passenger of the autonomous vehicle has at least one of (i) moved from the passenger seat of the autonomous vehicle while the vehicle is in motion or (ii) unbuckled the seat belt while the autonomous vehicle is in motion (see at least [0007], [0019-0021], [0038-0040], and [0042-0044],).
With respect to claim 17, Roberts as modified by Wang do not specifically teach determining, based on the sensor data, that object entered a zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion, wherein the zone corresponds to a driver area of the passenger compartment, and responsive to determining that the object entered the zone of the passenger compartment, including the driver area of the passenger compartment, while the autonomous vehicle is in motion, causing, by the one or more processors, the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle.
Chen teaches determining, based on the sensor data, that object entered a zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion (see at least [0038-0040] and [0117]), wherein the zone corresponds to a driver area of the passenger compartment (see at least [0038-0040], [0063-0064], [0100], [0117], and [0136], Chen discloses restriction areas in which to be accessed, for example sitting on a driver seat when it is not permitted.), and responsive to determining that the object entered the zone of the passenger compartment, including the driver area of the passenger compartment, while the autonomous vehicle is in motion, causing, by the one or more processors, the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0038-0040], [0063-0064], [0100], [0117], and [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts as modified by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because Roberts is directed to detecting unpermitted actions in a vehicle and responding accordingly and Chen teaches unpermitted actions in a vehicle and triggering a remote request accordingly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Chen determining, based on the sensor data, that object entered a zone of the passenger compartment while the autonomous vehicle is in motion, wherein the zone corresponds to a driver area of the passenger compartment, and responsive to determining that the object entered the zone of the passenger compartment, including the driver area of the passenger compartment, while the autonomous vehicle is in motion, causing, by the one or more processors, the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle. This would be done so that the safety of passengers can be increased, and the damage done to autonomous vehicles can be reduced (see Chen para 0064-0065).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al (US 20220388524 A1) in view of Wang Hui (CN106274678A) in view of Chen et al (US 20210191398 A1) in view of Weisser et al (US 20210174102 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Roberts as modified by Wang and Chen do not specifically teach determining, based on the sensor data, that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than a threshold period of time, and wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is further based on the determination that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than the threshold period of time.
Weisser teaches determining, based on the sensor data, that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than a threshold period of time (see at least [0014], [0031], [0055], and [claim 1]), and wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is further based on the determination that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than the threshold period of time (see at least (see at least [0014], [0031], [0055], and [claim 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts as modified by Wangand Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Weisser of determining, based on the sensor data, that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than a threshold period of time, and wherein causing the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle is further based on the determination that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than the threshold period of time. This would be done to increase safety of passengers by mitigating situations in which passengers have issues settling into their respective seats (see Weisser para 0003-0004).
With respect to claim 14, Roberts discloses wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on: the determination that the passenger of the autonomous vehicle has at least one of (i) moved from a seat of the vehicle while the autonomous vehicle is in motion or (ii) unbuckled a seat belt while the autonomous vehicle is in motion (see at least [0007], [0021], and [0042-0044]).
Roberts do not specifically disclose wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on the determination that a manual input has been applied to a control mechanism of the autonomous vehicle.
Wang teaches wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on the determination that a manual input has been applied to a control mechanism of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [page 7]) “…Other people can snatch the steering wheel to sound and light alarm. If such dangerous behavior has not stopped, the device will automatically brake the vehicle. Which can effectively solve the dangerous behavior of passengers stealing the driver's steering wheel...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts which teaches determining unsafe interaction with the autonomous vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on the determination that a manual input has been applied to a control mechanism of the autonomous vehicle. This would be done to effectively solve the dangerous behavior of passengers stealing the driver's steering wheel (see Wang page 7).
However, Roberts as modified by Wang and Chen do not specifically teach wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on: a determination that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than a threshold period of time (see at least [0009], [0011], [0031], [0035], and [0066]).
Weisser teaches wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on: a determination that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than a threshold period of time (see at least (see at least [0014], [0031], [0055], and [claim 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberts as modified by Wang and Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Weisser wherein the modification to the operation of the autonomous vehicle comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle based on: a determination that the object has remained in the zone of the passenger compartment for a period of time greater than a threshold period of time. This would be done to increase safety of passengers by mitigating situations in which passengers have issues settling into their respective seats (see Weisser para 0003-0004).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights