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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 of US Application No.18/409,417 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 21, 22, 29, and 35.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 21-24, 29-33, and 35-40 under 35 USC § 102, see REMARKS, filed 02 March 2026, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Applicant argues that Liu does not teach determine, while at the intermediate point, whether the autonomous vehicle is able to generate a plan to traverse a second trajectory that causes the autonomous vehicle to move from the intermediate point to the destination without additional guidance, wherein the plan is generated based, at least in part, on the destination and on one or more of a kinematic constraint or a planning constraints. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as indicated in the rejection below. Applicant also argues that Liu does not teach “wherein the communication channel between the autonomous vehicle and the system is ceased based on the autonomous vehicle being able to generate the second trajectory”. This argument is persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 21-24, 29-33, and 35-40 under § 102 are withdrawn. However, new rejections of claims 21-24, 29-33, and 35-40 under § 103 are set forth below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification at ¶ [0001] indicates a filing date of July 26, 2012 for U.S. Patent Application No. 16/523,833. However, the filing date for U.S. Patent Application No. 16/523,833 is July 26, 2019
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-24, 29-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0364704 A1, “Liu”) in view of Hummelshoj (US 2019/0196465 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 29, and 35, Liu discloses intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities and teaches:
receiving a request for guidance from an autonomous vehicle associated with an inability of the autonomous vehicle to continue along a route to a destination (teleoperation request sent to a teleoperator – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0158]; teleoperation event is triggered when motion planning process is unable to find a trajectory towards the goal due to a planning error – see at least ¶ [0092]; goal may include a destination – see at least ¶ [0065]), the request including a subset of sensor data identified by the autonomous vehicle, the subset of sensor data associated with the inability of the autonomous vehicle to continue along the route to the destination (the request may include data associated with status or environment of the vehicle or related AV system, e.g., sensor data – see at least ¶ [0007], [0086]; teleoperation request 434 may comprise information about an AV failure, AV system information and data 412, the teleoperation event 422, important features, currently active teleoperation events, one or more teleoperations, and data of the AV system associated with each active teleoperation event – see at least ¶ [0132]; data associated with teleoperation request, such relevant information of a system failure, system information and data 412, the teleoperation event 422, important features, currently active teleoperation events, one or more teleoperations, or data of the AV systems associated with each active teleoperation event, or combinations of them – see at least ¶ [0142]);
receiving, from a user, input indicating an intermediate point proximate to the autonomous vehicle (teleoperator may, in a tele-interaction session, provide a one or more seeds 920 of a possible trajectory – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0160]); and
transmitting the input to the autonomous vehicle (teleoperation command my comprise the one or more seeds – see at least ¶ [0160]), the autonomous vehicle configured to:
determine, based at least in part on the input, a first trajectory to reach the intermediate point (motion planning process of the AV system constructs a trajectory starting from its current location – see at least ¶ [0161]);
execute the first trajectory (teleoperation handling process sends the teleoperation to the AV system to affect autonomous driving capabilities of the AV – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0088]);
determine, while at the intermediate point, whether the autonomous vehicle is able to generate a plan to traverse a second trajectory that causes the autonomous vehicle to move from the intermediate point to the destination without additional guidance (at 306, once the AV system completes execution of the teleoperation command AV system returns to autonomous mode 301 and listens for another teleoperation event; i.e., when the teleoperation event ends, the vehicle will either operate in autonomous mode to continue to the destination or generate another teleoperation request), wherein the plan is generated based, at least in part, on the destination (trajectory may include path or route from one place to another, e.g., a drop off location – see at least ¶ [0063]) and on one or more of a kinematic constraint (intervention, e.g., trajectory, may include a speed profile – see at least ¶ [0027], [0040], [0166]) or a planning constraints (motion planning process of the AV system constructs a trajectory from goals 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040 – see at least ¶ [0161]);
perform one of:
in response to determining the autonomous vehicle is able to generate the second trajectory, executing the second trajectory, wherein the communication channel between the autonomous vehicle and the system is ceased [ ] (at 306, once the AV system completes execution of the teleoperation, teleoperation ends and AV system returns to autonomous mode 301 and listens for another teleoperation event – see at least Fig. 3A and ¶ [0088]); or
in response to determining the autonomous vehicle is unable to generate the second trajectory, [ ] sending a second request for further guidance via the communication channel (at 306, once the AV system completes execution of the teleoperation, teleoperation ends and AV system returns to autonomous mode 301 and listens for another teleoperation event – see at least Fig. 3A and ¶ [0088]).
Liu fails to teach the communication channel is ceased based on the autonomous vehicle being able to generate the second trajectory; and maintaining the communication channel and sending a second request for further guidance via the communication channel.
However, Hummelshoj discloses input from a plurality of teleoperators for decision making regarding a predetermined driving situation and teaches:
determine, while at the intermediate point, whether the autonomous vehicle is able to generate a plan to traverse a second trajectory that causes the autonomous vehicle to move from the intermediate point to the destination without additional guidance (after a need for teleoperator input is determined at 241, the method loops between 245 and 251 until a determination at 253 that the vehicle is not still in the predetermined driving situation – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0105]; i.e., if the driving situation is that the vehicle is unable to find a trajectory towards the goal (Liu at ¶ [0092]), then 253 determines if the vehicle still is unable to find a trajectory towards the goal after receiving and implementing control commands at 245 and 251, respectively; in other words, do the commands from the teleoperator provide a trajectory to achieve the destination); and
perform one of:
in response to determining the autonomous vehicle is able to generate the second trajectory, executing the second trajectory, wherein the communication channel between the autonomous vehicle and the system is ceased based on the autonomous vehicle being able to generate the second trajectory (computing system may continuously monitor for conditions indicating that the vehicle is no longer in the predetermined driving situation so that full vehicle control may be transferred back to the autonomous vehicle system – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0105]; i.e., in combination with Liu, teleoperation is ended when the vehicle is able to find a trajectory toward the goal); or
in response to determining the autonomous vehicle is unable to generate the second trajectory, maintaining the communication channel and sending a second request for further guidance via the communication channel (computing system may continuously monitor for conditions indicated that the vehicle is no longer in the predetermined driving situation so that full vehicle control may be transferred back to the autonomous vehicle system – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0105]; new commands may be received at 245 until the vehicle is determined to not be in the predetermined driving situation – see at least Fig. 7; i.e., in combination with Liu, teleoperation is active and new command are received from operators until the vehicle is able to find a trajectory toward the goal).
In summary, Liu provides closing a teleoperation session, i.e., ending communication with the teleoperator, after a teleoperation command has been implemented by the vehicle. The vehicle may continue to be monitored after the teleoperation session is closed and another teleoperation session may be initiated as necessary. In other words, Liu does not provide for maintaining the teleoperation session, i.e., maintaining communication with the teleoperator, even after the teleoperation command is executed by the vehicle. However, Hummelshoj provides for continued monitoring of the vehicle to determine that the vehicle is no longer in a predetermined driving situation. As long as the vehicle is still in the predetermined driving situation, additional commands from teleoperators may be received for controlling the vehicle via the commands.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu to provide for ceasing or maintaining the communication channel, as taught by Hummelshoj, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would help the vehicle to overcome the predetermined driving situation and return to autonomous control (Hummelshoj at ¶ [0105]).
Regarding claims 22, 30, and 36, Liu further teaches:
receiving a second input indicating a second intermediate point (teleoperator may provide a series of goals 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040 in a tele-interaction session – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0161]); and transmitting the second input to the device (goals are provided to motion planning process of the AV system – see at least ¶ [0161]), the device further configured to determine the trajectory based at least in part on the second intermediate point (motion planning process of the AV system constructs a trajectory from goals 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040 – see at least ¶ [0161]).
Regarding claim 23, Liu further teaches:
wherein the first trajectory violates one or more policies of the autonomous vehicle (the intervention, i.e., trajectory, may overwrite a travel rule – see at least ¶ [0012], [0015], [0161]).
Regarding claim 24, Liu further teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is further configured to stop at the intermediate point until receiving a release command (teleoperator may assist AV system to find an appropriate safe-to-stop location – see at least ¶ [0120]; teleoperator may provide a series of goals 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040 in a tele-interaction session – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0161]).
Regarding claim 31, Liu further teaches:
wherein the intermediate point comprises a location in an environment to enable an emergency vehicle to pass (teleoperator may assist AV system to find an appropriate safe-to-stop location – see at least ¶ [0120]; teleoperator may provide a series of goals 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040 in a tele-interaction session – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0161]; when a notification from an emergency vehicle is received by the AV system, the teleoperator may assist the AV system to find ana appropriate stopping location – see at least ¶ [0106]).
Regarding claims 32 and 37, Liu further teaches:
wherein the request for guidance from the device indicates that the device is being prevented from reaching a destination (a teleoperation event may be triggered if motion planning process is unable to find a trajectory towards a goal due to a planning error – see at least ¶ [0092]).
Regarding claims 33 and 38, Liu further teaches:
wherein the first trajectory is in violation to a policy of the device, and the input causes the trajectory to override the policy of the device (the intervention, i.e., trajectory, may overwrite a travel rule – see at least ¶ [0012], [0015], [0161]).
Regarding claim 39, Liu further teaches:
wherein the executable instructions, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to at least: process the input into instructions having a format based, at least in part, on the device (a teleoperation command 452 comprising a new trajectory is issued from server 450 – see at least ¶ [0133]).
Regarding claim 40, Liu further teaches:
wherein the intermediate point is an intermediate location between a current orientation of the device and a destination of the device (teleoperator may provide a series of goals 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040 in a tele-interaction session – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0161]; ‘goals’ includes a destination – see at least ¶ [0065]; i.e., goals 1010, 1020, 1030 may be intermediate goals between a current location and goal 1040, which may be a destination).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hummelshoj, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ravichandran et al. (US 2018/0284771 A1, “Ravichandran”).
Regarding claim 25, Liu and Hummelshoj fail to teach but Ravichandran discloses processing a request signal regarding operation of an autonomous vehicle and teaches:
wherein the intermediate point is within a threshold radius of a current position of the autonomous vehicle (acceptable stopping distances may be determined in a proximity region, e.g., within a specified distance – see at least ¶ [0148]) and indicates a desired heading for the autonomous vehicle to achieve when located at the intermediate point (request for an emergency stop may be received from a teleoperator – see at least ¶ [0009]; teleoperator may select a target stopping place – see at least ¶ [0178]; stopping place may include a direction in which an AV may be facing – see at least ¶ [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Hummelshoj to provide the intermediate point within a threshold radius and desired heading, as taught by Ravichandran, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would limit time spent looking for stopping places that are less relevant (Ravichandran at ¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 26, Ravichandran further teaches:
wherein the desired heading differs from a heading determined by the autonomous vehicle (if the AV is unable to reach a target stopping place, the AV system may adopt a fallback strategy, including choosing another acceptable stopping place – see at least ¶ [0191]; i.e., choosing a new stopping place would be choosing a different heading when the stopping place includes a direction in which the AV may be facing as each stopping point may include a direction in which the AV may be facing – see at least ¶ [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu, Hummelshoj, and Ravichandran to provide a heading, as further taught by Ravichandran, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would limit time spent looking for stopping places that are less relevant (Ravichandran at ¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 27, Liu and Hummelshoj fail to teach but Ravichandran discloses processing a request signal regarding operation of an autonomous vehicle and teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is further configured to stop until an emergency vehicle is no longer present proximate the autonomous vehicle (AV system detects or receives information about the presence of an emergency vehicle, determines the AV to stop, potentially until the detected emergency vehicle passes – see at east ¶ [0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Hummelshoj to provide for stopping the vehicle until an emergency vehicle is no longer present, as taught by Ravichandran, with a reasonable expectation of success because it allow the vehicle to stop for an emergency vehicle but restart if the stop location is not a normally acceptable location to stop (Ravichandran at ¶ [0119]).
Claims 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hummelshoj, as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Allard (US 2001/0037163 A1).
Regarding claims 28 and 34, Liu and Hummelshoj fail to teach but Allard discloses a method and system for remote control of a mobile robot and teaches:
causing a display to display to the user a plurality of arrows, wherein an arrow of the plurality of arrows is associated with a cardinal direction, the input is associated with the plurality of arrows, and the intermediate point is determined, based at least in part, on the input (movement may be controlled by a joystick 320 represented by four-arrow icon, where each click on an arrowhead will move the robot – see at least Fig. 11 and ¶ [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Hummelshoj to provide a display that displays a plurality of arrows, as taught by Allard, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow a remote operator to control movement and heading of the vehicle (Allard at ¶ [0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights