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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/26/2025. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 11, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination. Objections to the drawings and specification have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Rejection to claim(s) 17 over the 35 USC 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach all claim limitations of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular applicant points towards the newly added limitations reciting, “wherein monitoring the first vehicle includes obtaining diagnostic information about the first vehicle and displaying the diagnostic information on a display monitor of the monitoring arrangement.” Accordingly all independent claims and their dependents are allowable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration, in light of the amendment, the examiner would rely on a newly cited portion of the Pederson reference to teach the limitation. Looking at [0127]-[0129] of Pederson it teaches that a vehicle can “initiate a require for assistance form a tele-operator” and that this require can “include information (e.g. state data).” This state date can include “data that indicates the state or condition of the vehicle that is executing the technique 500, including any of kinetic state data relating to any of the velocity and acceleration of a vehicle, location data, including the geographical location of a vehicle (e.g., the latitude and longitude of the vehicle) or the location of the vehicle with respect to another object, vehicle position, including the orientation and inclination (e.g., slope of the vehicle on an incline) of the vehicle, the operational state of the vehicle, including the electrical state or mechanical state of the vehicle (e.g., health of the electrical vehicle systems, mechanical vehicle systems, tire pressure, etc.), maintenance data related to maintenance of the vehicle, energy source data including an amount of fuel remaining or an amount of battery charge remaining, sensor data based on outputs from sensors including, optical sensors, audio sensors, an motion sensors, internal state data, including a temperature and humidity inside the passenger cabin of the vehicle, and a current task (e.g., pick up a passenger) of the vehicle.” This state information is transmitted and used to generate the display seen in Fig 7 and Fig 8 of Pederson. Fig 8 in particular shows item 808 which can include “vehicle specific information” which would be the same as the state information, [0139]. Taken as a whole the newly cited portions of Pederson in combination with Imai would teach all claim limitations of the independent claims and render them as obvious. Accordingly claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103, and their dependents are as well. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.” For a more detailed explanation and mapping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 ,8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US PG Pub 2021/0094567) in view of Pedersen (US PG Pub 2020/0310417).
Regarding claim 1, Imai teaches a method comprising: obtaining, at a monitoring arrangement, a first supervisory request from a first vehicle, (Fig. 1, item 12; and [0022]-[0023] teach a remote monitoring apparatus receiving a remote assistance request from a vehicle) the first supervisory request arranged to indicate that the first vehicle has identified a first potential issue; ([0022] and [0047] teach that the vehicle has identified that it has fallen into a situation beyond its scope/identified a potential issue involving the area it is traveling in)
when it is determined by the monitoring arrangement that the first potential issue is to be mitigated, providing information from the monitoring arrangement to a control arrangement, wherein the control arrangement takes control of the first vehicle based on the information. (Fig. 1, item 17 and 40; [0039] teach the system sending the remote assistance request to a remote operator; [0060] teaches that the remote operator provides instructions to the vehicle according to the mitigation situation)
Imai does not teach processing, at the monitoring arrangement, the first supervisory request, wherein processing the first supervisory request includes monitoring the first vehicle using the monitoring arrangement and determining, by the monitoring arrangement, whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated, wherein monitoring the first vehicle includes obtaining diagnostic information about the first vehicle and displaying the diagnostic information on a display monitor of the monitoring arrangement.
However, Pedersen teaches “processing, at the monitoring arrangement, the first supervisory request, wherein processing the first supervisory request includes monitoring the first vehicle using the monitoring arrangement and determining, by the monitoring arrangement, whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated,;” (Fig. 10, items 1010 and 1006; and [0150]-[0153] teach the system, which can be operated at a remote station, determining that the situation needs a specific form of mitigation) and “wherein monitoring the first vehicle includes obtaining diagnostic information about the first vehicle and displaying the diagnostic information on a display monitor of the monitoring arrangement” ([0127]-[0129] teach the vehicle sending state specific information in the request for monitoring. Fig. 8 item 808 and [0139] at least teach the monitoring arrangement displaying the state information which is analogous to displaying the diagnostic information)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 2, Imai teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the first vehicle is a vehicle capable of operating autonomously (Fig. 1, item 30; and at least [0018]-[0019] teach the vehicle as being an autonomous vehicle) and the control arrangement is a teleoperations arrangement, ([0060] teaches that the remote operator can provide control instructions to the autonomous vehicle) and wherein the first vehicle is operating autonomously when the first supervisory request is obtained at the monitoring arrangement, (Fig. 4; and at least [0049] teach that the vehicle is operating autonomously at the time of error detection) the first supervisory request being a request for the monitoring arrangement to observe the first vehicle as the first vehicle operates autonomously to determine whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated. ([0022] and [0069] teach the monitoring agent to observe real-time data from the vehicle to determine if the situation has resolved itself)
Regarding claim 3, Imai teaches the method of claim 2.
Imai does not teach wherein when it is determined that the first potential issue is not to be mitigated, the monitoring arrangement provides an instruction to the first vehicle, the instruction being arranged to indicate that the first vehicle is to continue to operate autonomously.
However, Pedersen teaches “wherein when it is determined that the first potential issue is not to be mitigated, the monitoring arrangement provides an instruction to the first vehicle, the instruction being arranged to indicate that the first vehicle is to continue to operate autonomously.” (Fig. 10 items 1006, 1010, and 1018; and [0150]-[0153] teach the system determining that a current situation does not require some form of remote operator assistance and alerting the vehicle to continue as it was in its autonomous mode)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 4, Imai teaches the method of claim 2.
Imai does not teach wherein determining whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated includes determining whether the first potential issue is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle wherein when it is determined that the first potential issued is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle, the method further includes: causing the first vehicle to stop operating autonomously to await the teleoperations arrangement taking control of the first vehicle.
However, Pedersen teaches “wherein determining whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated includes determining whether the first potential issue is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle.” (Fig. 10 items 1006, 1010, and 1012; and [0150]-[0155] teach the system determining that the system provides a teleoperator the issues of the vehicle and the teleoperator provides instructions to the vehicle in order to mitigate the situation) and “wherein when it is determined that the first potential issued is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle, the method further includes: causing the first vehicle to stop operating autonomously to await the teleoperations arrangement taking control of the first vehicle.” ([0154] teaches the vehicle halting and ceasing movement in the event that it needs assistance.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 5, Imai teaches the method of claim 1 wherein processing the first supervisory request includes determining a priority for the first supervisory request, ([0023] teaches the system assigning a priority to the assistance request of the vehicle) and adding the first supervisory request to a queue of supervisory requests that are to be serviced, wherein the first supervisory request is added to the queue based on the priority. ([0023] teaches the system assigning the system request to a queue of assistance requests based on a priority order)
Regarding claim 6, Imai teaches the method of claim 5 wherein the queue of supervisory requests includes at least a second supervisory request, the second supervisory request being obtained at the monitoring arrangement from a second vehicle, the second supervisory request being a request to monitor the second vehicle using the monitoring arrangement. ([0023] teaches that the monitoring station can receive requests from “the autonomous vehicles 30” it is therefore taught that the queue can have multiple assistance requests from multiple different vehicles)
Regarding claim 8, Imai teaches logic encoded in one or more tangible non-transitory, computer-readable media for execution ([0071] teaches the system as a computer with RAM and a processor to execute instructions stored on the RAM) and when executed operable to: obtain a first supervisory request from a first vehicle, (Fig. 1, item 12; and [0022]-[0023] teach a remote monitoring apparatus receiving a remote assistance request from a vehicle) the first supervisory request arranged to indicate that the first vehicle has identified a first potential issue; ([0022] and [0047] teach that the vehicle has identified that it has fallen into a situation beyond its scope/identified a potential issue involving the area it is traveling in)
provide information from the monitoring arrangement to a control arrangement when it is determined that the first potential issue is to be mitigated, wherein the control arrangement takes control of the first vehicle based on the information, the control arrangement being separate from the first vehicle. (Fig. 1, item 17 and 40; [0039] teach the system sending the remote assistance request to a remote operator; [0060] teaches that the remote operator provides instructions to the vehicle according to the mitigation situation)
Imai does not teach process the first supervisory request, wherein the logic operable to process the first supervisory request includes logic operable to monitor the first vehicle using the monitoring arrangement and to determine, by the monitoring arrangement, whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated, wherein the logic operable to monitor the first vehicle includes logic operable to obtain diagnostic information about the first vehicle and to display the diagnostic information on a display monitor of the monitoring arrangement.
However, Pedersen teaches “process the first supervisory request, wherein the logic operable to process the first supervisory request includes logic operable to monitor the first vehicle using the monitoring arrangement and to determine, by the monitoring arrangement, whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated,” (Fig. 10, items 1010 and 1006; and [0150]-[0153] teach the system, which can be operated at a remote station, determining that the situation needs a specific form of mitigation) and “wherein the logic operable to monitor the first vehicle includes logic operable to obtain diagnostic information about the first vehicle and to display the diagnostic information on a display monitor of the monitoring arrangement” ([0127]-[0129] teach the vehicle sending state specific information in the request for monitoring. Fig. 8 item 808 and [0139] at least teach the monitoring arrangement displaying the state information which is analogous to displaying the diagnostic information)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 9, Imai teaches the logic of claim 8 wherein the first vehicle is a vehicle capable of operating autonomously (Fig. 1, item 30; and at least [0018]-[0019] teach the vehicle as being an autonomous vehicle) and the control arrangement is a teleoperations arrangement, ([0060] teaches that the remote operator can provide control instructions to the autonomous vehicle) and wherein the first vehicle is operating autonomously when the first supervisory request is obtained. (Fig. 4; and at least [0049] teach that the vehicle is operating autonomously at the time of error detection)
Regarding claim 10, Imai teaches the logic of claim 9.
Imai does not teach wherein when it is determined that the first potential issue is not to be mitigated, the monitoring arrangement provides an instruction to the first vehicle, the instruction being arranged to indicate that the first vehicle is to continue to operate autonomously.
However, Pedersen teaches “wherein when it is determined that the first potential issue is not to be mitigated, the monitoring arrangement provides an instruction to the first vehicle, the instruction being arranged to indicate that the first vehicle is to continue to operate autonomously.” (Fig. 10 items 1006, 1010, and 1018; and [0150]-[0153] teach the system determining that a current situation does not require some form of remote operator assistance and alerting the vehicle to continue as it was in its autonomous mode)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 11, Imai teaches the logic of claim 9.
Imai does not teach Imai does not teach wherein the logic operable to determine whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated includes logic operable to whether the first potential issue is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle, wherein when it is determined that the first potential issued is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle, the logic is further operable to cause the first vehicle to stop operating autonomously to await the teleoperations arrangement taking control of the first vehicle.
However, Pedersen teaches “wherein the logic operable to determine whether the first potential issue is to be mitigated includes logic operable to whether the first potential issue is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle,” (Fig. 10 items 1006, 1010, and 1012; and [0150]-[0155] teach the system determining that the system provides a teleoperator the issues of the vehicle and the teleoperator provides instructions to the vehicle in order to mitigate the situation) and “wherein when it is determined that the first potential issued is to be addressed by using the teleoperations arrangement to control the first vehicle, the logic is further operable to cause the first vehicle to stop operating autonomously to await the teleoperations arrangement taking control of the first vehicle.” ([0154] teaches the vehicle halting and ceasing movement in the event that it needs assistance.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 12, Imai teaches the logic of claim 8 wherein the logic operable to process the first supervisory request is operable to determine a priority for the first supervisory request, ([0023] teaches the system assigning a priority to the assistance request of the vehicle) and the logic operable to add the first supervisory request to a queue of supervisory requests that are to be serviced is operable to add the first supervisory request to the queue based on the priority. ([0023] teaches the system assigning the system request to a queue of assistance requests based on a priority order)
Regarding claim 13, Imai teaches the logic of claim 12 wherein the queue of supervisory requests includes at least a second supervisory request, the second supervisory request being obtained from a second vehicle, the second supervisory request being a request to monitor the second vehicle using the monitoring arrangement. ([0023] teaches that the monitoring station can receive requests from “the autonomous vehicles 30” it is therefore taught that the queue can have multiple assistance requests from multiple different vehicles)
Regarding claim 15, Imai teaches a system comprising: a plurality of vehicles, (Fig. 1, item 30; and [0018]-[0019] teach the system having a plurality of vehicles) the plurality of vehicles configured to operate autonomously, (Fig. 1, item 30; and at least [0018]-[0019] teach the vehicle as being an autonomous vehicle) wherein the plurality of vehicles includes a first vehicle;
a monitoring arrangement, the monitoring arrangement configured to monitor the plurality of vehicles, (Fig. 1, items 12 and 30; and [0018]-[0019] and [0022] teach a system to monitor a plurality of vehicles) the monitoring arrangement including at least one display screen arranged to display information provided by the plurality of vehicles, (Fig. 1, item 40; and [0019] and [0060] teaches the system displaying on a monitor of an operator, vehicle information) the monitoring arrangement arranged to obtain a first supervisory request from the first vehicle, (Fig. 1, item 12; and [0022]-[0023] teach a remote monitoring apparatus receiving a remote assistance request from a vehicle) the monitoring arrangement further being arranged to ([0022] and [0069] teach the monitoring agent to observe real-time data from the vehicle to determine if the situation has resolved itself) and
a control arrangement, the control arrangement being configured to control the plurality of vehicles remotely, wherein the control arrangement takes control of the first vehicle when the monitoring arrangement determines that the first vehicle is to be controlled remotely. (Fig. 1, item 17 and 40; [0039] teach the system sending the remote assistance request to a remote operator; [0060] teaches that the remote operator provides instructions to the vehicle according to the mitigation situation)
Imai does not teach service the first supervisory request to determine whether the first vehicle is to be controlled remotely.
However, Pedersen teaches “service the first supervisory request to determine whether the first vehicle is to be controlled remotely.” (Fig. 10, items 1010 and 1006; and [0150]-[0153] teach the system, which can be operated at a remote station, determining that the situation needs a specific form of mitigation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicles using teleoperations arrangements. Imai teaches that the system can determine if it needs help, but this is self-monitoring at the vehicle. Pedersen teaches a system that can use sensed data to determine the level of issue at the vehicle and if the vehicle needs help, i.e. mitigation. As taught in [0002] an autonomous vehicle may encounter situations it cannot handle; by allowing the system to reach out to a teleoperations center, the system can then be directed via some form of remote control. The systems use of risk assessment allows for only the most important service requests to be given to teleoperators.
Regarding claim 16, Imai teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the monitoring arrangement includes a queue of supervisory requests, ([0023] teaches the system assigning the system request to a queue of assistance requests based on a priority order) and wherein the monitoring arrangement is configured to determine a priority for the first supervisory request ([0023] teaches the system assigning a priority to the assistance request of the vehicle) and to add the first supervisory request to the queue based on the priority before servicing the first supervisory request. ([0023] teaches the system adding the request to the queue based on a priority)
Regarding claim 17, Imai teaches the system of claim 15 wherein when the monitoring arrangement determines that the first vehicle is to be controlled remotely, the monitoring arrangement instructs the control arrangement to take control of the first vehicle, (Fig. 1, item 17 and 40; [0039] teach the system sending the remote assistance request to a remote operator; [0060] teaches that the remote operator provides instructions to the vehicle according to the mitigation situation) wherein the monitoring arrangement instructs the control arrangement to take control of the first vehicle by sending an instruction from the monitoring arrangement to the control arrangement. (Fig. 1, item 17 and 40; [0039] teach the system sending the remote assistance request to a remote operator; [0060] teaches that the remote operator provides instructions to the vehicle according to the mitigation situation by sending an instruction via the network.)
Regarding claim 18, Imai teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the first vehicle is configured to perform self-monitoring to identify a first potential issue, (Fig 1, item 37; and [0047] teach an “assistance necessity determining unit” this unit is configured to monitor the vehicle, as part of the vehicle and determine that an issue has arisen. Once this determination is made, it can request assistance.) and wherein the first vehicle is further configured to provide the first supervisory request to the monitoring arrangement, ([0047] teaches the vehicle sending an assistance request to a monitoring system) the first supervisory request being arranged to identify the first potential issue. ([0022] and [0047] teach that the vehicle has identified that it has fallen into a situation beyond its scope/identified a potential issue involving the area it is traveling in)
Regarding claim 19, Imai teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the control arrangement is a teleoperations arrangement is arranged to service the first supervisory request. ([0060] teaches that the remote operator can provide control instructions to the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding claim 20, Imai teaches the system of claim 19 wherein the monitoring arrangement is arranged to service the first supervisory request to determine whether the first vehicle is to be controlled remotely, wherein the monitoring arrangement is arranged to service the first supervisory request to determine whether the first vehicle is to be controlled remotely includes obtaining sensor information from the first vehicle after obtaining the first supervisory request ([0037]-[0038] teaches the system can request sensor data from the vehicle, and using said sensor data) and processing the sensor information to perceive an environment around the first vehicle. ([0037]-[0038] and [0043]-[0046] teach the system processing the ambient environment around the vehicle in order to present it to the tele-operator)
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai and Pedersen in view of Mercay (US PG Pub 2020/0175428).
Regarding claim 7, Imai teaches the method of claim 5.
Imai does not teach wherein identifying the priority associated with the first supervisory request includes determining whether the first vehicle may operate safely in view of the first potential issue.
However, Mercay teaches “wherein identifying the priority associated with the first supervisory request includes determining whether the first vehicle may operate safely in view of the first potential issue.” ([0052] teaches the system assigning vehicle assistance request priorities based on some form of detected safety metrics)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen with Mercay; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of vehicles using some form of teleoperations. Imai teaches the use of a queue system, while Pedersen teaches the use of a risk evaluation system to determine that the vehicle is in an unsafe position to move forward alone. Mercay combines these two teachings. As Mercay teaches in [0052] elevating safety related issues to a higher queue order allows the system to process these requests sooner. This means if the autonomous vehicle is traveling with passengers or empty can have an impact on when the operator is able to assist the vehicle. This prevents occupied vehicles from being in a dangerous situation for more than is necessary, and moves people from dangerous situations faster.
Regarding claim 14, Imai teaches the logic of claim 12.
Imai does not teach, wherein the logic operable to identify the priority associated with the first supervisory request includes logic operable to determine whether the first vehicle may operate safely in view of the first potential issue.
However, Mercay teaches “wherein the logic operable to identify the priority associated with the first supervisory request includes logic operable to determine whether the first vehicle may operate safely in view of the first potential issue.” ([0052] teaches the system assigning vehicle assistance request priorities based on some form of detected safety metrics)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imai and Pedersen with Mercay; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of vehicles using some form of teleoperations. Imai teaches the use of a queue system, while Pedersen teaches the use of a risk evaluation system to determine that the vehicle is in an unsafe position to move forward alone. Mercay combines these two teachings. As Mercay teaches in [0052] elevating safety related issues to a higher queue order allows the system to process these requests sooner. This means if the autonomous vehicle is traveling with passengers or empty can have an impact on when the operator is able to assist the vehicle. This prevents occupied vehicles from being in a dangerous situation for more than is necessary, and moves people from dangerous situations faster.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pederson (US PG Pub 2019/0278298) teaches methods and systems for providing remote support and negotiating problem situations of autonomous operation of vehicles based on signal states and vehicle information are described. The disclosed technology receives state data for the vehicles by an apparatus such as a remote vehicle support apparatus. The state data indicates a respective current state for the vehicles. The vehicles are each assigned to respective remote vehicle support queues based on the respective state data. An indication that one of the vehicles is requesting remote support is received by the remote vehicle support apparatus. In response to a determination that a change in the state data indicates that autonomous operation of the one of the vehicles is operating outside of defined parameter values, the remote support is provided to the one of the vehicles through a communications link by transmitting instruction data to modify the autonomous operation of the one of the vehicles.
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665