Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 01 December 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17 and 20 were amended.
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 were canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 depends from itself. It is unclear if claim 13 is an independent claim or should depend from another claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the claim to depend from claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derouen (US 2021/0264386 A1) in view of Nagamitsu (US 2022/0317995 A1).
Claim 1. Derouen teaches: A system, comprising:
a memory (see, e.g., Figure 9 and ¶s 87-91, 98, and 101 teaching that a computing device implements the methods of the invention including with, e.g., modules stored in a memory); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform operations comprising (see, e.g., Figure 9 and ¶s 87-91, 98, and 101 teaching that a computing device implements the methods of the invention including with, e.g., modules stored in a memory that are executed by at least one processor):
assigning, by a user interface (UI), one or more ingest and deploy resources within an autonomous vehicle (AV) maintenance facility responsive to an assessment of a needed maintenance service of an on-board memory of an AV during an AV ingest and deploy maintenance cycle (regarding a user interface, see, e.g., ¶s 46-47 teaching that the invention can operate in part with input from a user 112 via a user device 106 accessing the server 102 and platform 100; see also Figure 1; regarding assigning ingest and deploy resources in an AV maintenance facility responsive to an assessment of needed maintenance service, see, e.g., ¶s 92-94 and 96 teaching ranking different resources for different autonomous vehicles based on received service requests, urgency levels of the requests, locations, wait times, and other factors; see further, e.g., ¶s 51 and 54 teaching generating an appointment reservation for the AV and sending it to the AV);
scheduling, by the user interface (UI), based on the assigned one or more ingest and deploy resources, a maintenance service for the AV at a corresponding stage of the AV ingest and deploy maintenance cycle (regarding a user interface, see, e.g., ¶s 46-47 teaching that the invention can operate in part with input from a user 112 via a user device 106 accessing the server 102 and platform 100; see also Figure 1; regarding assigning ingest and deploy resources in an AV maintenance facility responsive to an assessment of needed maintenance service, see, e.g., ¶s 92-94 and 96 teaching ranking different resources for different autonomous vehicles based on received service requests, urgency levels of the requests, locations, wait times, and other factors; see further, e.g., ¶s 51 and 54 teaching generating an appointment reservation for the AV and sending it to the AV, based on what service or services would be required);
directing, based on the maintenance service, self-navigating movement of the AV within the AV maintenance facility (see, e.g., Figure 6 and ¶s 75-77 teaching that the algorithm determines the maintenance requirements and directs the AV to the appropriate service locations and inspection lanes that were required, including multiple service lanes); and
responsive to completion of the ingest and deploy maintenance cycle for the AV, self-navigating the AV to a next maintenance stage within the AV maintenance facility (see, e.g., Figure 6 and ¶s 75-77 teaching that the algorithm determines the maintenance requirements and directs the AV to the appropriate service locations and inspection lanes that were required, including multiple service lanes; see further ¶s 78-79 teaching further processing the collected maintenance data to determine the path forward for the vehicle).
Derouen does not disclose:
wherein the one or more ingest and deploy resources at the AV maintenance facility include software upload/download equipment, the assigning of the one or more ingest and deploy resources is based on an available memory capacity of the software upload/download equipment;
Nagamitsu teaches wherein the one or more ingest and deploy resources at the AV maintenance facility include software upload/download equipment (see “center 10” and “OTA Master 30” in ¶ [0036]; Fig. 3-5), wherein the one or more ingest and deploy resources at the AV maintenance facility include software upload/download equipment (see ¶s [0048]-[0047] of Nagamitsu), the assigning of the one or more ingest and deploy resources is based on an available memory capacity of the software upload/download equipment (see ¶s [0089] of Nagamitsu). This operation of Nagamitsu is applicable to the system of Derouen as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communicating with an autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Derouen to consider memory capacity as taught by Nagamitsu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Derouen in order to increase efficiency of a software update (see ¶ [0007] of Nagamitsu).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, these claims recite the same functions as Claim 1 above but are written to recite different statutory categories. The rejection of Claim 1 above is incorporated herein. Claim 11 recites a method and Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Because Derouen teaches a method (see, e.g., at least ¶ 7) as well as a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the method (see, e.g., Figure 9 and ¶s 87-91, 98, and 101 teaching that a computing device implements the methods of the invention including with, e.g., modules stored in a memory that are executed by at least one processor), Derouen anticipates Claims 11 and 20 given the rejection of Claim 1 above along with these additional teachings. Similarly coextensive claims will be addressed together below for the sake of brevity.
Claims 3 and 13. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Nagamitsu further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the software upload/download equipment comprises a data cart (see “center 10” in ¶ [0036]; Fig. 3 of Nagamitsu). Examiner notes that Claim 13 recites that “the at least software upload/download equipment comprises any of: a wired data cart or a wireless data cart,” ¶ [0048] of Nagamitsu discloses wireless communication between center 10 and OTA master 30.
The motivation for making this modification to Derouen is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 15. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teach the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Derouen further teaches: The system of claim 1, the at least one processor further configured to perform operations comprising: determining, responsive to an event recorded in the on-board memory, if a priority ingest is required (see, e.g., ¶s 92-93 and 96-97 teaching prioritizing the AV routing based on the severity of the problems of the vehicle, including based on trouble codes determined generated in the onboard computer; see also Figure 10 features 1020 and 1030 teaching substantially the same; Examiner notes that the “trouble codes” are events recorded in the on-board memory as taught, e.g., in at least Figure 5 feature 502 and ¶s 59 and 72 and represent events such as an oil leak in ¶ 94 or a low tire in ¶ 97; see further Figure 11 feature 1110 teaching the vehicle telematics alert of an oil leak).
Claims 6 and 16. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teach the limitations of Claims 5 and 15. Derouen further teaches: The system of claim 5, wherein the event occurred during a previous mission of the AV (see, e.g., ¶s 92-93 and 96-97 teaching prioritizing the AV routing based on the severity of the problems of the vehicle, including based on trouble codes determined generated in the onboard computer; see also Figure 10 features 1020 and 1030 teaching substantially the same; Examiner notes that the “trouble codes” are events recorded in the on-board memory of the previous mission as taught, e.g., in at least Figure 5 feature 502 and ¶s 59 and 72 and represent events such as an oil leak in ¶ 94 or a low tire in ¶ 97; see further Figure 11 feature 1110 teaching the vehicle telematics alert of an oil leak).
Claims 7 and 17. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teach the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Derouen further teaches: The system of claim 1, the at least one processor further configured to perform operations comprising determining one or more of: if an ingest phase of the ingest and deploy maintenance cycle is complete; if an deploy phase of the ingest and deploy maintenance cycle is not required; or if the deploy phase of the ingest and deploy maintenance cycle is complete (see, e.g., Figure 6 feature 616 teaching the determination of whether the maintenance cycle is complete; see also ¶ 77 teaching substantially the same).
Claim 8. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teach the limitations of Claim 1. Derouen further teaches: The system of claim 1, the at least one processor further configured to perform operations comprising interfacing with any of: local servers, remote servers, or mobile data carts, during the ingest and deploy (see, e.g., ¶s 43-46 teaching communicating with remote servers when ingesting the vehicle’s data; see also ¶s 74, 77, 78, and 84 disclosing substantially the same).
Claims 9 and 18. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teach the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Derouen further teaches: The system of claim 1, the at least one processor further configured to perform operations comprising receiving, from the AV over a communicating network, periodic updates of a current status of the maintenance services (see, e.g., ¶ 97 teaching that the vehicle communicates trouble codes to the system and the system analyzes the codes to determine the status of the vehicle, the needed maintenance services, and where and when to best send the vehicle to receive those maintenance services).
Claims 10 and 19. Derouen in view of Nagamitsu teach the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Derouen does not teach the following limitation. However, Nagamitsu further teaches: the at least one processor further configured to perform operations comprising upgrading software stored on the on-board memory during a deploy phase of the AV ingest and deploy maintenance cycle (see “versions are upgraded” in ¶ [0084] of Nagamitsu).
The motivation for making this modification to Derouen is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 102/103 of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648