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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/2/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The claim objections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant argues that Roy does not teach plot points. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Roy teaches plot points which could be the current, waypoints, and end locations of the vehicle. Using mobile device 400, the user inputs destination points, or draws a trajectory including waypoints which are sent to the vehicle (Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61) “the route to take by the vehicle from the current position 505 toward each of the successive waypoints”. Roy does not teach each trajectory plot point, of the one or more trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time - in its entirety.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 11079753 B1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Raghavan (US 20240363009 A1, cited in a previous office action) and Hellgren (US 20250076877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses a method for controlling a vehicle, comprising (Col. 2 Line 3 – Col. 2 Line 37, Col. 5 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 18, Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 10 Line 8);
generating one or more data points from one or more sensors coupled to a vehicle (Col. 6 Line 64 – Col. 7 Line 48);
the one or more data points pertain to one or more of: an environment of the vehicle (Col. 5 Line 3 – Col. 5 Line 17);
one or more system component measurements of the vehicle (Col. 6 Line 19 – Col. 6 Line 41);
performing remote station system control of the vehicle using a remote station system, wherein the performing the remote station system control of the vehicle comprises: using the remote station system (Col. 3 Line 57 – Col. 4 Line 49, Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 9 Line 42, Fig. 4);
receiving the one or more data points generated by the one or more sensors (Col. 6 Line 64 – Col. 7 Line 48);
generating a remote trajectory command, wherein: the remote trajectory command comprises trajectory instructions which comprise one or more trajectory plot points (Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61);
generating, based on the one or more trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions (Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 15 Line 14 – Col. 15 Line 23, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19, 22-23; It is obvious that the computing device 302 or mobile communication device 400 can generate driving actions because it has all the necessary data and components, and saves vehicle computing resources);
the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to be positioned in accordance with the one or more trajectory plot points (Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 15 Line 14 – Col. 15 Line 23, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19, 22-23);
transmitting the remote trajectory command to the vehicle (Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 15 Line 14 – Col. 15 Line 23, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19);
performing a fallback function, comprising: determining whether command of the vehicle should fall back to one or more secondary control modes (Col. 14 Line 29 – Col. 15 Line 13);
when it is determined that command of the vehicle should fall back to the one or more secondary control modes, switching, using a switch, control of the vehicle to the one or more secondary control modes (Col. 14 Line 29 – Col. 15 Line 13);
the vehicle comprises a control module configured to receive the remote trajectory command (Col. 9 Line 58 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19; Control module is mapped to self-driving vehicle processor);
the performing the remote station system control comprises (Col. 9 Line 58 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19);
receiving, via the control module, the remote trajectory command (Col. 9 Line 58 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19);
causing the vehicle, via one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions in accordance with the remote trajectory command (Col. 9 Line 43 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19).
Roy does not specifically state each trajectory plot point, of the one or more trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time.
However, Raghavan teaches each trajectory plot point, of the one or more trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Roy with trajectory plot points comprising position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time of Raghavan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is possible to predict vehicle location with an uncertainty based on waypoints and estimated time of arrival at each waypoint. If a vehicle including its uncertainty region passes into a restricted area, the remote station can issue alerts or take control of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Roy with Raghavan as this enhances control of the vehicle. As stated in Raghavan, “if an uncertainty region around interpolated path 506 reaches farther than distance 524, it is possible that vehicle 502 will enter region 518, and an alert condition is detected. If the network detects the alert condition, the network entity may transmit an alert, a termination instruction, or both” (Paragraph 0098).
Roy does not specifically state the one or more trajectory plot points comprise a sequence of trajectory plot points spanning a set timeframe and generated at a predetermined time interval.
However, Hellgren teaches the one or more trajectory plot points comprise a sequence of trajectory plot points spanning a set timeframe and generated at a predetermined time interval (Hellgren - Paragraphs 0127-0128, Fig. 10) “a planning horizon… node or segment location along a candidate vehicle trajectory at a given time interval”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Roy with trajectory plot points spanning a set timeframe and generated at a predetermined time interval of Hellgren with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Roy and Hellgren are in the field of trajectory planning. One would have been motivated to combine as this optimizes the efficiency of vehicle movements and reduces congestion (Hellgren - Paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 6, Roy discloses the remote station system comprises one or more remote actuation controls configured to generate the one or more driving actions of the remote trajectory command (Col. 9 Line 43 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19);
the performing the remote station system control comprises generating the one or more driving actions of the remote trajectory command, using the one or more remote actuation controls (Col. 9 Line 43 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19).
Regarding claim 7, Roy discloses the one or more sensors comprise one or more cameras configured to generate one or more images of the environment of the vehicle (Col. 5 Line 3 – Col. 5 Line 17);
the remote station system comprises one or more displays configured to display the one or more images of the environment of the vehicle (Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 9 Line 42, Col. 10 Line 9 – Col. 10 Line 39, Col. 15 Line 62 – Col. 16 Line 14);
the performing the remote station system control comprises displaying the one or more images of the environment of the vehicle, using the one or more displays (Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 9 Line 42, Col. 10 Line 9 – Col. 10 Line 39, Col. 15 Line 62 – Col. 16 Line 14).
Regarding claim 10, Roy discloses the determining whether command of the vehicle should fall back to the one or more secondary control modes comprises: determining whether the remote station system meets a minimum integrity level (Col. 14 Line 29 – Col. 15 Line 13; Minimum integrity level is mapped to prescribed safe operating parameters);
when the remote station system does not meet the minimum integrity level, determining that command of the vehicle should fall back to the one or more secondary control modes (Col. 14 Line 29 – Col. 15 Line 13).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Raghavan, and Hellgren, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kindo (US 12049242 B2, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 3, Roy discloses a vehicle with a secondary control mode.
Roy does not specifically state the one or more secondary control modes comprise a manual control mode; switching control of the vehicle to the one or more secondary control modes comprises performing the manual control mode; performing the manual control mode comprises controlling one or more actuation controls, coupled to the vehicle, configured to enable the vehicle to perform one or more driving actions.
However, Kindo teaches the one or more secondary control modes comprise a manual control mode (Col. 6 Line 36 – Col. 7 Line 35; Manual control mode is mapped to occupant driving mode);
switching control of the vehicle to the one or more secondary control modes comprises performing the manual control mode (Col. 6 Line 36 – Col. 7 Line 35);
performing the manual control mode comprises controlling one or more actuation controls, coupled to the vehicle, configured to enable the vehicle to perform one or more driving actions (Col. 6 Line 36 – Col. 7 Line 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Roy with switching control of the vehicle to a manual control mode of Kindo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle may need to switch from remote control to manual control when, for example, there is an abnormality with the remote operator. The driver of the vehicle or the vehicle will need to drive in order to maintain safety. One would have been motivated to combine Roy with Kindo as this system improves driver and vehicle safety. As stated in Kindo, “As a result, it is possible to cause a quick transition from the first state to the third state, and to cause a transition from the third state to the second state while ensuring safety” (Col. 7 Line 26 – Col. 7 Line 35).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Raghavan, and Hellgren, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Straela (US 20250033674 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 5, Roy discloses the one or more sensors comprise: a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor (Col. 5 Line 3 – Col. 5 Line 17);
a camera (Col. 5 Line 3 – Col. 5 Line 17);
an image captured by the camera (Col. 7 Line 28 – Col. 7 Line 60).
Roy does not specifically state the one or more data points comprise: a LiDAR point cloud generated by the LiDAR sensor.
However, Straela teaches the one or more data points comprise: a LiDAR point cloud generated by the LiDAR sensor (Paragraphs 0031, 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Roy with a LiDAR point cloud of Straela with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the raw data that LiDARs generate is point clouds. These point clouds can be processed to create map tiles and bounding volumes necessary for vehicle navigation. One would have been motivated to combine Roy with Straela as this achieves map creation for vehicle navigation. As stated in Straela, “the AI/ML platform 154 may incorporate the map viewing services for visualizing the effectiveness of various object detection or object classification models, the simulation platform 156 may incorporate the map viewing services for recreating and visualizing certain driving scenarios, the remote assistance platform 158 may incorporate the map viewing services for replaying traffic incidents to facilitate and coordinate aid, the ride-hailing platform 160 may incorporate the map viewing services into the client application 172 to enable passengers to view the AV 102 in transit en route to a pick-up or drop-off location” (Paragraphs 0039-0040).
Claims 11, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 11079753 B1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Raghavan (US 20240363009 A1, cited in a previous office action), Hellgren (US 20250076877 A1), and Tokuda (US 20210018908 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 11, Roy discloses a system for controlling a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle (Col. 2 Line 3 – Col. 2 Line 37, Col. 5 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 18, Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 10 Line 8);
one or more actuation controls configured to enable the vehicle to perform one or more driving actions (Col. 9 Line 43 – Col. 10 Line 8, Col. 16 Line 25 – Col. 16 Line 61, Figs. 19);
a remote station system (Col. 3 Line 57 – Col. 4 Line 49, Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 9 Line 42, Fig. 4);
configured to switch command of the vehicle between automatic trajectory control and remote station system control (Col. 6 Line 42 – Col. 6 Line 63, Col. 14 Line 29 – Col. 15 Line 13);
and a processor configured to (Col. 9 Line 30 – Col. 9 Line 57).
Roy does not specifically state a switch.
However, Tokuda teaches a switch (Paragraphs 0026-0029, 0034, 0041-0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Roy with a switch of Tokuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a switch in the vehicle or a switch at a remote station allows the operators to change the driving mode of the vehicle. It may be necessary to switch the driving modes when the operator has not inputted driving controls for a predetermined time for any reason, there is a system failure, the GPS signal is lost, etc. One would have been motivated to combine Roy with Tokuda as this improves user control over the vehicle. As stated in Roy, “the system may switch automatically from user control to autonomous control in response to detecting that the user has not provided a control input for a predetermined period of time. Conversely, the system may switch automatically from autonomous control to user control if there is a system failure or if the GPS/GNSS signal needed for navigation is lost… the switchover from autonomous to remote control and vice versa may be triggered by a user command” (Col. 6 Line 42 – Col. 6 Line 63).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 11 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 15-16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 6-7. The system taught/disclosed in claims 15-16 can be clearly performed with the method of claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 15-16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 10. The system taught/disclosed in claim 19 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Roy discloses a computing device, comprising a processor and a memory, coupled to the vehicle, configured to store programming instructions that, when executed by the processor, are configured to cause the processor to (Col. 5 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 18, Col. 9 Line 58 – Col. 10 Line 8).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 11. The system taught/disclosed in claim 20 can be clearly performed with the system of claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Raghavan, Hellgren, and Tokuda, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kindo (US 12049242 B2, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 3. The system taught/disclosed in claim 13 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights