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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 05 August 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2 and 9 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 05 May 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2 and 9 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 05 May 2025 has been withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) apply as a result of the amendments as seen below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 05 May 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The amended/new limitation of “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control operation of the autonomous vehicle according to the approved adjusted operating parameters” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because in light of Applicant’s as-filed specification, [e.g. paragraph [0139] reciting “adjust an operating parameter (e.g., a speed, steering angle, light indicator, etc.) to travel on the drivable path”] controlling operation of the vehicle according to the adjusted operating parameter, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be merely controlling a light indicator of the vehicle which would not be integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. To expedite prosecution, Examiner suggests amending the last limitation to recite “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control operation of at least one of a steering system, a propulsion system, and a braking system of the autonomous vehicle according to the approved adjusted operating parameters” to positively recite the practical application related to a speed and/or a steering angle of the vehicle and not the light indicator.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 05 May 2025 (Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be associated with the amended/new limitation of “wherein the alert message ... includes an indication that a pending decision, requiring at least one of an approval or a rejection, will be subsequently transmitted to the supervisory computing device”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8 and 15 use both terms “alert message” and “alert” to refer to the same term. Same terminology should be used when referring to the same term. Examiner suggests amending both instances of “alert message” in each of claims 1, 8 and 15 to instead recite “alert. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8 and 15 should be amended to recite “transmit[ting] an alert message [...] to a supervisory computing device” since the “to” is missing from the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests amending claims 8 and 15 to be amended to recite “receiv[ing] ...; and upon receiving ...,
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 should be amended to recite “transmitting, by the one or more processors, to the supervisory computing device, an indication of the drivable path ... and a request. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 and 9 recite “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive, from the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors, a sensor signal associated with a drivable area on which the autonomous vehicle may travel, wherein the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors connected to the autonomous vehicle” which is not supported by Applicant’s specification. The corresponding limitations in Applicant’s specification is associated with the one or more sensors of the sensor apparatus that is positioned at the drivable intersection remote from the autonomous vehicle. Examiner suggests canceling claims 2 and 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “the approved adjusted operating parameters”. Because it is in a plural form while all the previously recited corresponding limitations are singular (e.g. “parameter”), therefore, connection or lack thereof is unclear, to the Examiner.
Claims 2 and 9 recite “the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claims.
Claims 2 and 9 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “a sensor signal associated with a drivable area on which the autonomous vehicle may travel”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the previously recited signal and drivable area, respectively, in claims 1 and 8, respectively, or not.
Claim 2 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “wherein the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors connected to the autonomous vehicle”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether the limitation is incomplete and instead is meant to recite “wherein the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors are connected to the autonomous vehicle” or whether “connected” is meant as a past tense verb of connect here.
Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 8 is directed to an apparatus and claim 15 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a supervisory computing device; and
a sensor apparatus positioned at a drivable intersection, the sensor apparatus remote from an autonomous vehicle and in communication with the autonomous vehicle and comprising:
one or more sensors configured to receive a sensor signal associated with the drivable intersection; and
one or more processors configured to:
receive, from the one or more sensors, an indication of a presence of the autonomous vehicle at the drivable intersection associated with the sensor apparatus;
transmit an alert message to the supervisory computing device, wherein the alert message indicates that the autonomous vehicle is approaching the drivable intersection and includes an indication that a pending decision, requiring at least one of an approval or a rejection, will be subsequently transmitted to the supervisory computing device;
receive, from the one or more sensors, a signal associated with a drivable area on which the autonomous vehicle may travel;
predict a drivable path for the autonomous vehicle entering the drivable intersection;
transmit, to the supervisory computing device, an indication of the drivable path for the autonomous vehicle previously identified in the alert and a request, from the supervisory computing device, for an approval for the autonomous vehicle to adjust an operating parameter to travel on the drivable path in view of other vehicles at the drivable intersection;
receive, from the supervisory computing device, the approval to adjust the operating parameter to travel on the drivable path; and
upon receiving the approval, transmit to an electronic control unit of the autonomous vehicle, a control signal to adjust the operating parameter to initiate travelling on the drivable path,
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control operation of the autonomous vehicle according to the approved adjusted operating parameters
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, predicting in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising:
a supervisory computing device; and
a sensor apparatus positioned at a drivable intersection, the sensor apparatus remote from an autonomous vehicle and in communication with the autonomous vehicle and comprising:
one or more sensors configured to receive a sensor signal associated with the drivable intersection; and
one or more processors configured to:
receive, from the one or more sensors, an indication of a presence of the autonomous vehicle at the drivable intersection associated with the sensor apparatus;
transmit an alert message to the supervisory computing device, wherein the alert message indicates that the autonomous vehicle is approaching the drivable intersection and includes an indication that a pending decision, requiring at least one of an approval or a rejection, will be subsequently transmitted to the supervisory computing device;
receive, from the one or more sensors, a signal associated with a drivable area on which the autonomous vehicle may travel;
predict a drivable path for the autonomous vehicle entering the drivable intersection;
transmit, to the supervisory computing device, an indication of the drivable path for the autonomous vehicle previously identified in the alert and a request, from the supervisory computing device, for an approval for the autonomous vehicle to adjust an operating parameter to travel on the drivable path in view of other vehicles at the drivable intersection;
receive, from the supervisory computing device, the approval to adjust the operating parameter to travel on the drivable path; and
upon receiving the approval, transmit to an electronic control unit of the autonomous vehicle, a control signal to adjust the operating parameter to initiate travelling on the drivable path,
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control operation of the autonomous vehicle according to the approved adjusted operating parameters
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and detecting values/features for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting steps and control operation step are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending notification/info/data from some of the previous steps and see [0139] of Applicant’s as-filed specification regarding “light indicator” and Examiner’s explanation in the Response to Arguments above), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 8 and 15 further recite the “A system comprising: a supervisory computing device; and a sensor apparatus positioned at a drivable intersection, the sensor apparatus remote from an autonomous vehicle and in communication with the autonomous vehicle and comprising: one or more sensors configured to ...; and one or more processors configured to: ...” (claim 1), “A sensor apparatus positioned at a drivable intersection, the sensor apparatus remote from an autonomous vehicle and in communication with the autonomous vehicle and comprising: one or more sensors configured to ...; and one or more processors configured to: ...” (claim 8) and “A computer-implemented method comprising: ..., by [the] one or more processors of [a] sensor apparatus, from one or more sensors ...” (claim 15) merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitations of transmitting and controlling operation are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20200126415A1) in view of Ain (US20240059322A1) in further view of Gogna (US12005925B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a system (see at least Figure 1) comprising: a supervisory computing device (see at least Figure 1); and a sensor apparatus positioned at a drivable intersection (see at least abstract and [0099]), the sensor apparatus remote from an autonomous vehicle and in communication with the autonomous vehicle (see at least Figure 1) and comprising: one or more sensors configured to receive a sensor signal associated with the drivable intersection (see at least [0100] and [0105]); and one or more processors (see at least [0100]) configured to: receive, from the one or more sensors, an indication of a presence of the autonomous vehicle at the drivable intersection associated with the sensor apparatus (see at least [0013], [0037] and [0104]); transmit an alert message to the supervisory computing device, wherein the alert message indicates that the autonomous vehicle is approaching the drivable intersection (see at least [0013], [0031] and [0120]); receive, from the one or more sensors, a signal associated with a drivable area on which the autonomous vehicle may travel (see at least [0105], [0108] and [0131]); predict a drivable path for the autonomous vehicle entering the drivable intersection (see at least [0005], [0006], [0106], [0132] and [0138]); the drivable path requiring the autonomous vehicle to adjust an operating parameter to travel on the drivable path in view of other vehicles at the drivable intersection (see at least [0013], [0107] and [0137]-[140]); and transmit to an electronic control unit of the autonomous vehicle, a control signal to adjust the operating parameter to initiate travelling on the drivable path (see at least [0013], [0139] and [0145]), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control operation of the autonomous vehicle according to the approved adjusted operating parameters (see at least [0155], [0163] and [0211]).
Lin does not explicitly disclose transmit, to the supervisory computing device, an indication of the drivable path for the autonomous vehicle and a request, from the supervisory computing device, for an approval for the autonomous vehicle to adjust an operating parameter to travel on the drivable path in view of other vehicles at the drivable intersection; receive, from the supervisory computing device, the approval to adjust the operating parameter to travel on the drivable path; and upon receiving the approval, transmit the control signal. However, Ain teaches transmit, to the supervisory computing device, an indication of the drivable path for the autonomous vehicle and a request, from the supervisory computing device, for an approval for the autonomous vehicle to adjust an operating parameter to travel on the drivable path in view of other vehicles at the drivable intersection; receive, from the supervisory computing device, the approval to adjust the operating parameter to travel on the drivable path; and upon receiving the approval, transmit the control signal (see at least Figure 3, [0044], [0046], [0047], [0055], [0058] and [0073]-[0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Ain which teaches transmit, to the supervisory computing device, an indication of the drivable path for the autonomous vehicle and a request, from the supervisory computing device, for an approval for the autonomous vehicle to adjust an operating parameter to travel on the drivable path in view of other vehicles at the drivable intersection; receive, from the supervisory computing device, the approval to adjust the operating parameter to travel on the drivable path; and upon receiving the approval, transmit the control signal since they are all directed to predicting a drivable path for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Ain would increase reliability and safety of the overall system by doublechecking that the required adjustment to the operating parameter is approved/safe before sending it to the vehicle control system.
Lin as modified by Ain fails to disclose wherein the alert message includes an indication that a pending decision, requiring at least one of an approval or a rejection, will be subsequently transmitted to the supervisory computing device, the autonomous vehicle previously identified in the alert. However, Gogna teaches wherein the alert message includes an indication that a pending decision, requiring at least one of an approval or a rejection, will be subsequently transmitted to the supervisory computing device, the autonomous vehicle previously identified in the alert (see at least abstract and lines 61-67 of Col. 19; “teleoperation system ... receive a notification ... of upcoming potential requests for teleoperations inputs, for example ... send a notification that a teleoperation request may be forthcoming”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lin as modified by Ain to incorporate the teachings of Gogna which teaches wherein the alert message includes an indication that a pending decision, requiring at least one of an approval or a rejection, will be subsequently transmitted to the supervisory computing device, the autonomous vehicle previously identified in the alert since they are directed to remote assistance for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Gogna would increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Lin as modified by Ain and Gogna discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive, from the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors, a sensor signal associated with a drivable area on which the autonomous vehicle may travel (see at least Lin [0031], [0049], [0105], [0108], [0127] and [0131]), wherein the one or more autonomous vehicle sensors connected to the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lin [0031], [0049] and [0127]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin as modified by Ain and Gogna discloses wherein the sensor apparatus is permanently installed proximate the drivable intersection (see at least Lin abstract and [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Lin as modified by Ain and Gogna discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a camera, a LiDAR sensor, a radar sensor, and a sonar sensor (see at least Lin [0109]).
Regarding claim 5, Lin as modified by Ain and Gogna discloses wherein the one or more processors predict the drivable path by inputting at least the signal associated with the drivable area into a simulation model (see at least Lin [0005], [0006], [0093], [0106], [0132] and [0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses wherein the supervisory computing device is remote to the sensor apparatus and the autonomous vehicle (see at least Figure 1).
Lin fails to disclose wherein the supervisory computing device is located at a mission control headquarters and operated by a user. However, Ain teaches wherein the supervisory computing device is located at a mission control headquarters and operated by a user (see at least [0044], [0046], [0047], [0055], [0058] and [0073]-[0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Ain which teaches wherein the supervisory computing device is located at a mission control headquarters and operated by a user since they are all directed to predicting a drivable path for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Ain would increase reliability and safety of the overall system by using a remote system operated by a user to approve vehicle’s motion/path.
Regarding claim 7, Lin as modified by Ain and Gogna discloses wherein the sensor apparatus is used for testing new sensors for the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lin [0066], [0078], [0100], [0109], [0120] and [0127]).
Regarding claims 8-14, claims 8-14 are commensurate in scope with claims 1-7, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 1-7 (Note: for claim 13, claim 13 is commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 6, see above for rejection of claims 1 and 6).
Regarding claims 15-20, claims 15-20 are commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 3-7, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 1 and 3-7.
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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m..
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 at (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 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667