DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) of record.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 7/15/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 7/15/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous Claim 1-20 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “receive real time sensor data at a volume and variety sufficient to instruct the AV to perform self-navigation actions in a dynamic environment” and this limitation appears to be new matter. Where in the specification is the data measured or compared to determine that it is sufficient? For example, is there a step where the data is compared to a minimum threshold or how is the sufficiency determined? As currently presented, Claim 1 appears to have new matter thus it is rejected for failing its written description recruitment as the specification does not support this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “receive real time sensor data at a volume and variety sufficient to instruct the AV to perform self-navigation actions in a dynamic environment” and the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear, thus indefinite. What does sufficient mean? Does this mean able to function, or able to function safely? Further, there appears a missing step to where and when and even how this is determined. As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any received data that an AV uses, as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Eperjesi et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0137615) in view of Lockwood et al. (United States Patent 10,564,638).
With respect to Claim 1:
With respect to Claim 1: While Eperjesi discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors associated with an autonomous vehicle (AV) and coupled to a memory” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0006 and 0150];
“the one or more processors configured to: receive real time sensor data at a volume and variety sufficient to instruct the AV to perform self-navigation actions in a dynamic environment” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“use the real time sensor data to instruct the AV to perform the self navigation actions in the dynamic environment” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“use a machine learning (ML) model of the AV to, responsive to the real time sensor data, generate an output” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0076-0080, 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“the output indicating at least one of a self-navigation action option generated and analyzed responsive to the real time sensor data by the ML model” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0076-0080, 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“a likelihood that the AV will implement the self-navigation action in the dynamic environment associated with the AV” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0033, 0042, 0076-0080, 0140-0145, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“in response to an error event experienced by the AV and associated with the self-navigation action, establish a remote assistance (RA) session” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“perform a translation of the output into a navigation constraint associated with the self-navigation action” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“the translation comprising a determination that the navigation constraint represents a condition deemed by the one or more processors to restrict a behavior of the AV in the dynamic environment to the self-navigation action or trigger the AV to implement the self-navigation action” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“and generate an RA interface comprising user interface (UI) data representing the navigation constraint” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“and make the RA interface and the navigation constraint available for use in the RA session” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0133, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
Eperjesi does not specifically state that what the model output is (extremely broad), or that anything more than sensor data is sent over to the RA processors.
Lockwood, which is also a RA request system teaches “responsive to the real time sensor data, generate an output” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25];
“the output indicating at least one of a self-navigation action option generated and analyzed responsive to the real time sensor data” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25];
“in response to an error event experienced by the AV and associated with the self-navigation action, establish a remote assistance (RA) session” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25];
“perform a translation of the output into a navigation constraint associated with the self-navigation action” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25];
“the translation comprising a determination that the navigation constraint represents a condition deemed by the one or more processors to restrict a behavior of the AV in the dynamic environment to the self-navigation action or trigger the AV to implement the self-navigation action” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25];
“and generate an RA interface comprising user interface (UI) data representing the navigation constraint” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25];
“and make the RA interface and the navigation constraint available for use in the RA session” [Lockwood, Col 31 lines 17-25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lockwood into the invention of Eperjesi to not only include using machine models to determine obstacles and instances that require remote assistance as Eperjesi discloses but to also send over sensor data as well as determinized drive lines and trajectories to the remote assistance displays as taught by Lockwood with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Lockwood into Eperjesi to create a more robust system that send over many types of data for use of the RA session and increase efficiency based on real-time information [Lockwood, Col 2 lines 10-19]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements transferring data to a RA session and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an input provided by an RA operator via the RA interface” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“wherein the input is configured to adjust the navigation constraint represented by the UI data” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“generate a corrective instruction configured to trigger the AV to ignore, remove, or reject the condition associated with the navigation constraint and implement a different navigation action” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“and send the corrective instruction to the AV” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 3: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the output further comprises a cost associated with the self-navigation action that represents the likelihood that the AV will implement the self-navigation action in the dynamic environment” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the cost exceeds a threshold” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“in response to determining that the cost exceeds the threshold, determine that the AV has or will implement the self-navigation action” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“the translation is based at least partly on the determining that the AV has or will implement the navigation action.” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 4: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the UI data comprises a UI element that visually depicts at least one of a stop location, a traffic boundary, a line representing at least one of the stop location and the condition associated with the navigation constraint, the navigation constraint, a state of the AV, and a geometric shape representing the condition associated with the navigation constraint” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 5: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the self-navigation action comprises stopping by the AV” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“and wherein the error event comprises at least one of a need of the AV for remote assistance, a failure by the AV to continue self-navigation after stopping because of the navigation condition, and a failure by the AV to continue self-navigation after stopping for a threshold period of time” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 6: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the RA interface comprises a view of the dynamic environment generated based on real time sensor data from the AV” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“the real time sensor data comprising at least one of image data from an image sensor, data from a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, data from a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, data from a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor, and data from an ultrasound sensor” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 7: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the UI data comprises an interactive UI element, and wherein the interactive UI element comprises at least one of an input control element and an interactive UI object” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0049-0052, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 8: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the output comprises a cost associated with the self-navigation action that represents the likelihood that the AV will implement the self-navigation action in the dynamic environment” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: in response to determining that a value of the cost exceeds a threshold, interpret the cost as a decision to implement the self-navigation action” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0044, 0053, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5];
“the translation is based at least partly on the interpreting of the cost as the decision to implement the self-navigation action” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0049-0052, 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 9: Eperjesi discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide the RA interface to a device used by an RA operator to remotely assist the AV with the error event associated with the RA session” [Eperjesi, ¶ 0150, 0157-0162 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claims 10-18: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 1-9. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 10-18 can clearly perform on the system of Claim 1-9. Therefore Claims 10-18 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 19-20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 1-9. The medium taught/disclosed in Claims 19-20 can clearly perform on the system of Claim 1-9. Therefore Claims 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights