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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1 and 15-16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments regarding specification objections, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The
objection of informalities has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding claim objections, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to claims 1, 15 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections in claims 1, 15 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
35 U.S.C. § 103, filed December 23, 2025, have been fully considered and are
persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s submission that Gao (US-20230132029-A1) is not a prior art to the present application per the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) exception, therefore this Office Action is being reconsidered and submitted as a second Non-Final without the Gao reference.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 5, should be changed to:
responsive to receiving a response indicative of driving instructions …
Claim 11, line 6, should be changed to:
responsive to verifying the second trajectory is available …
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fairfield (US-20150248131-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fairfield teaches a method for a vehicle (see Fairfield, Abstract, regarding “an autonomous vehicle to request assistance from a remote operator in certain predetermined situations”), comprising:
responsive to detecting a predefined trigger event via a sensor, stopping the vehicle via a controller and sending data indicative of the trigger event to a server via one or more transceivers (see Fairfield, figure 1, paragraphs 7, 24, 27, 30 and 47, regarding control system 106 (controller) of autonomous vehicle 100 determining/identifying that a predetermined situation has occurred based on sensed data of the environment (responsive to detecting a predefined trigger event via a sensor), sends a request for assistance to a remote operator/assistor (server/remote computer system) via wireless communication system 146 (one or more transceivers), the request includes the representation of the environment and the identified situation (data indicative of the trigger event), wherein the vehicle holds position (stopping the vehicle) awaiting a response from the remote assistor);
responsive to receiving a response indicative driving instructions to overcome the predefined trigger event from the server via the one or more transceivers, verifying if the vehicle is able to perform the driving instructions via the controller (see Fairfield, figure 3, paragraphs 93 and 96, regarding block 308 of receiving (via wireless communication system 146/one or more transceivers) a response from the remote assistor (server/remote computer system) indicating an autonomous operation (driving instructions to overcome the predefined trigger event/situation), wherein in block 310, for example, the vehicle performs additional processing before proceeding to determine if received instruction is to be trusted, if not, sends another request for assistance and/or may override an operator's response based on recently detected sensor data, exemplary of verifying if the vehicle is able to perform the given driven instructions via the controller); and
responsive to verifying the vehicle is able to perform the driving instructions, operating the vehicle autonomously using the driving instructions via the controller (see Fairfield, figure 3, paragraph 96, regarding block 310 with causing the vehicle to perform the autonomous operation (driving instructions via the controller).
Regarding claim 12, Fairfield teaches the method of claim 10, including further comprising:
responsive to detecting the predefined trigger event via the sensor, generating an alternative trajectory via the controller, and sending the alternative trajectory to the server via the one or more transceivers (see Fairfield, figure 1, paragraph 88, regarding the vehicle controller may send/transmit a single suggested operation or a set of two or more proposed options (autonomous operations/alternative trajectories) for the identified situation (predefined trigger event via sensors) via wireless communication system 146 (one or more transceivers); and
responsive to receiving the response indicative of an approval of the alternative trajectory, implementing the alternative trajectory via the controller (see Fairfield, paragraph 27, regarding “the vehicle (controller) may hold position (stopping the vehicle) until it receives a "release" (approval) from the remote operator to proceed with the proposed operation (for example, an alternative trajectory)”).
Regarding claim 13, Fairfield teaches the method of claim 10, including further comprising:
establishing a first wireless connection with a mobile device via the one or more transceivers (see Fairfield, figure 1, paragraphs 47 and 95, regarding responding to a request for assistance over a (first) wireless connection on a handheld mobile device via wireless communication system 146 (one or more transceivers);
sending a first sensor data to the server via the first wireless connection through the mobile device (see Fairfield, paragraphs 27, 47, and 91-92, regarding “in some embodiments, the more powerful computer (server) and the human operator (via handheld mobile device) may both receive a request for assistance”, wherein for example, handheld mobile device receives live video feed (a first sensor data) via direct wireless communication (a first wireless connection) such as infrared link from the vehicle controller, while the server also receives the live video feed via LTE (a wireless connection different from the first wireless connection) of the handheld mobile device); and
sending a second sensor data to the server via a second wireless connection without going through the mobile device (see Fairfield, paragraphs 91-92, regarding
“in some embodiments, the more powerful computer (server) and the human operator (via handheld mobile device) may both receive a request for assistance”, wherein, for example, the server receives (second/different) sensor data via a separate (second) wireless connection without going through the (handheld) mobile device).
Regarding claim 14, Fairfield teaches the method of claim 10, including wherein the predefined trigger event is indicative of a presence of a school bus in a vicinity of the vehicle, and the driving instructions include a command to not proceed in response to a determination that the school bus is active (see Fairfield, Abstract, figure 3, paragraphs 7, 82-83 and 86, regarding block 306 of method 300 and predetermined situations/scenarios involving temporary stop signs and/or particular vehicle types, such as a school bus, wherein it would have been well known in the art with common driving traffic rules that a vehicle in the vicinity of a school bus with an extended/deployed stop sign is indicative of active school bus activity requiring the vehicle not to proceed driving).
Regarding claim 15, Fairfield teaches the method of claim 10, including wherein the predefined trigger event is indicative of a automobile an automobile parked before the vehicle within a predefined threshold, and the driving instructions include a command to reverse the vehicle (see Fairfield, Abstract, figure 3, paragraphs 7, 82-83 and 86, regarding block 306 of method 300 and predetermined situations/scenarios involving, for example, an automobile parked before the vehicle within a predefined threshold such that, well known in the art, when no other maneuver options is available other than to perform a command to reverse the vehicle to clear the parked automobile, the common practice is to reverse the vehicle away from the parked automobile).
Regarding claims 16-18, independent claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, when executed by a controller of a vehicle, cause the vehicle to perform operations identical to the method for a vehicle of independent claim 10, and similarly, dependent claims 17-18 of independent claim 16 are also performing identical operations corresponding to dependent claims 12-13 of independent claim 10, respectively, therefore, claims 16-18 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 for the same rationale as claims 10, 12-13, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Fairfield teaches the method of claim 16, including wherein the predefined trigger event is indicative of a parked automobile blocking a vehicle route, and the instruction is indicative of keep waiting behind the parked automobile (see Fairfield, Abstract, figure 3, paragraphs 7, 82-83 and 86, regarding block 306 of method 300 and predetermined situations/scenarios involving, for example, a parked vehicle blocking a vehicle route, such that, well known in the art, when no other maneuver options is available, the common practice is to keep waiting till a maneuvering option becomes available).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408)918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
May 9, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights