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 Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on August 5, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections for claims 1-19 are withdrawn, at least, in view of Applicant’s amendments “…automatically initiate, a transition out of the remote assistance mode by signaling the control system of the AV to resume autonomous operation, without requiring additional input from the remote assistant.”
The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection for claim 20 is maintained.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the outstanding 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-3, 6-10, 11-13, and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Srinivasan, et al. (Publication US 2020/0239023 A1).
The outstanding 35 USC 102 rejections with withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 have been made in view of Applicant’s amendments as laid out in detail below.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “Examiner must ‘identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.’ “ See Remarks filed 8/5/2025, page 17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The outstanding rejection does include a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does. All of the references are within the same technical field of autonomously controlled vehicles. Further, the specific motivation to combine each of the references is specifically cited for each reference in the specific explanation of the rejection below within the phrase explaining, “for the benefit of… .”
The prior 35 USC 103 rejections are modified, as follows, in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claim language.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executed by one or more processors (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 20 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV;
receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene;
generate a spatial path for the AV to navigate based on the one or more waypoints, the spatial path modifying at least the portion of the planned path of the AV;
generate an endpoint along the spatial path; and
in response to determining that the AV has navigated past a waypoint and before the endpoint along the spatial path, transition out of the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint represents an end of the spatial path relative to a direction of travel associated with the spatial path.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate a spatial path” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a route through waypoints. Further, “transition out of the remote assistance mode” in the context of this claim encompasses a person stopping the assistance that involves the planning of the route. The Examiner notes that the claim does not explicitly state that there is any control of the autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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 idea 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV;
receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene;
generate a spatial path for the AV to navigate based on the one or more waypoints, the spatial path modifying at least the portion of the planned path of the AV;
generate an endpoint along the spatial path; and
in response to determining that the AV has navigated past a waypoint and before the endpoint along the spatial path, transition out of the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint represents an end of the spatial path relative to a direction of travel associated with the spatial path.
For the following reasons, 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 of “by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of “initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV and receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform determining a route. In particular, the receive step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 o amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as 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 “generate a spatial path for the AV to navigate based on the one or more waypoints, the spatial path modifying at least the portion of the planned path of the AV; generate an endpoint along the spatial path; and in response to determining that the AV has navigated past a waypoint and before the endpoint along the spatial path, transition out of the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint represents an end of the spatial path relative to a direction of travel associated with the spatial path” 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 of “when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV; receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV; receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 20 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funke, et al., Publication US 2023/0060435 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Funke”.)
As per claim 20, Funke discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors [see at least Funke [0024] "...Remote assistance system 102 may include computer devices (not shown) that monitor multiple vehicles 106 operating in any number of environments."], cause the one or more processors to:
initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV [see at least Funke [0024] "FIG. 1 illustrates an example implementation 100 to provide remote assistance to a vehicle...a remote assistance system 102 communicates with at least one vehicle 106, such as an autonomous vehicle, operating in an environment 104."];
receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene [see at least Funke [0025] "...The user of remote assistance system 102 selects a valid pull over area for vehicle 106 and places a footprint 108 at the selected pull over location."];
generate a spatial path for the AV to navigate based on the one or more waypoints, the spatial path modifying at least the portion of the planned path of the AV [see at least Funke [0026] "…vehicle 106 may follow a path 114 to the footprint 108"; FIG. 1];
generate an endpoint along the spatial path [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "228 The Vehicle ... Creates a Path for the Vehicle to Pull Out Onto the Roadway"; [0049] "At operation 228, the process may include... creating a path for the vehicle to pull out onto the roadway from the pull over location."]; and
in response to determining that the AV has navigated past a waypoint and before the endpoint along the spatial path, transition out of the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint represents an end of the spatial path relative to a direction of travel associated with the spatial path [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "224 Vehicle Stopped At Pull Over Location Footprint?"; "226 Trigger Event Resolved?"; "228 The Vehicle Reactivates a Previous Path Being Followed and Creates a Path for the Vehicle to Pull Out Onto the Roadway"; [0049] "At operation 228, the process may include the vehicle reactivating a previous path being followed and creating a path for the vehicle to pull out onto the roadway from the pull over location."]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 6-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke, et al. (Publication US 2023/0060435 A1), in view of Srinivasan, et al. (Publication US 2020/0239023 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Funke” and “Srinivasan”, respectively.)
As per claim 1 (representative of claim 11), Funke discloses a remote assistance system comprising:
a memory [see at least Funke [0116] "The processor(s) 1416 of the vehicle 1402 and the processor(s) 1444 of the computing device(s) 1442 may be any suitable processor capable of executing instructions to process data and perform operations as described herein…Processor(s) 1416 and 1444 may comprise one or more Central Processing Units (CPUs)......that processes electronic data to transform that electronic data into other electronic data that may be stored in ... memory"]; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory [see at least Funke [0024] "...Remote assistance system 102 may include computer devices (not shown) that monitor multiple vehicles 106 operating in any number of environments."], the one or more processors being configured to:
initiate a remote assistance mode between a remote assistant and an autonomous vehicle (AV) in a scene, the scene comprising at least a portion of a planned path of the AV [see at least Funke [0024] "FIG. 1 illustrates an example implementation 100 to provide remote assistance to a vehicle...a remote assistance system 102 communicates with at least one vehicle 106, such as an autonomous vehicle, operating in an environment 104."];
receive a waypoint input from the remote assistant associated with the remote assistance mode, wherein the waypoint input includes one or more waypoints in the scene [see at least Funke [0025] "...The user of remote assistance system 102 selects a valid pull over area for vehicle 106 and places a footprint 108 at the selected pull over location."];
execute a path-planning algorithm to generate, based at least in part on the waypoint input, a machine-executable spatial path for the AV to navigate, the machine-executable spatial path comprising remote assistance navigation instructions configured to be used by a control system of the AV, wherein executing the path-planning algorithm comprises computing a trajectory that accounts for one or more operational constraints of the AV and incorporates real time sensor data from a sensor system of the AV [see at least Funke [0026] "…vehicle 106 may follow a path 114 to the footprint 108"; FIG. 1; [0037] "...This current information may include the cause of the trigger event, the current location of the vehicle, images of the environment surrounding the vehicle, and the like. Such information may comprise, for example, a state of the vehicle (e.g., position, velocity, acceleration, orientation, etc.), sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (as described herein), representations of such sensor data (e.g., bounding boxes, segmentation data, etc.), internal messages generated by the vehicle (e.g., trajectory information, planning information, perception information, etc.), and the like."; {path planning algorithm} [0038] "...the process may include the remote assistance system identifying valid and/or invalid pull over locations for the vehicle on a GUI. Valid pull over areas may include surfaces that a vehicle can drive upon and are free of obstructions."];
generate an endpoint along the machine-executable spatial path by applying a computational procedure that selects a location based on one or more characteristics of the machine-executable spatial path and operational parameters [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "228 The Vehicle ... Creates a Path for the Vehicle to Pull Out Onto the Roadway"; [0049] "At operation 228, the process may include... creating a path for the vehicle to pull out onto the roadway from the pull over location."; [0048] "When the trigger event has resolved and the vehicle is ready to pull out of the pull over location and onto the roadway, a path can be determined by the vehicle (operation 224)..."; [0051] "At operation 232, the process may include the vehicle updating the previous path (e.g., prior to encountering the trigger event) based on the vehicle's current location. The vehicle may update the previous path using the new path created by the vehicle at operation 224..."]; and
apply the machine-executable spatial path to the AV [see at least Funke [0052] "At operation 234, the process may include the vehicle beginning to drive by following the updated path."]; and
in response to determining, based at least in part on localization data from sensors of the AV, that the AV has reached a transition condition along the machine-executable spatial path before the endpoint … [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "224 Vehicle Stopped At Pull Over Location Footprint?"; "226 Trigger Event Resolved?"; "228 The Vehicle Reactivates a Previous Path Being Followed and Creates a Path for the Vehicle to Pull Out Onto the Roadway"; [0049] "At operation 228, the process may include the vehicle reactivating a previous path being followed and creating a path for the vehicle to pull out onto the roadway from the pull over location."; [0051] "At operation 232, the process may include the vehicle updating the previous path (e.g., prior to encountering the trigger event) based on the vehicle's current location. The vehicle may update the previous path using the new path created by the vehicle at operation 224... ."]
Funke fails to disclose … in response to determining ... that the AV has reached a ... condition along the machine-executable spatial path ... automatically initiate, a transition out of the remote assistance mode by signaling the control system of the AV to resume autonomous operations, without requiring additional input from the remote assistant. However, Srinivasan teaches this limitation [see at least Srinivasan FIG. 13; [0146] "In operation 1324, autonomous execution of the route is resumed after completion of the first portion. … In some aspects, when the autonomous vehicle detects that the first portion of the route has been completed, the autonomous vehicle automatically (without operator input) resume autonomous navigation of the route."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Funke to use … in response to determining ... that the AV has reached a ... condition along the machine-executable spatial path ... automatically initiate, a transition out of the remote assistance mode by signaling the control system of the AV to resume autonomous operations, without requiring additional input from the remote assistant as disclosed in Srinivasan with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety and reliability of autonomous vehicles. [See at least Srinivasan [0031].]
As per claim 2 (representative of claim 12), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Funke discloses … wherein, the transition condition comprises a determination, using the localization data and operational criteria, that the AV is in a state suitable for autonomous operation … [see at least Funke FIG. 1; [0014] "… The remote assistance system can identify valid ... pull over locations for the vehicle using, for example, a graphical user interface (GUI) …"; [0037] "At operation 206, the process may include the vehicle communicating current information about the vehicle and the surrounding area to the remote assistance system. This current information may include the cause of the trigger event, the current location of the vehicle, images of the environment surrounding the vehicle, and the like. Such information may comprise, for example, a state of the vehicle (e.g., position, velocity, acceleration, orientation, etc.), sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (as described herein), representations of such sensor data (e.g., bounding boxes, segmentation data, etc.), internal messages generated by the vehicle (e.g., trajectory information, planning information, perception information, etc.)... ."]
Funke fails to disclose … a determination ... that the AV is in a state suitable for autonomous operation, without requiring additional input from the remote assistant. However, Srinivasan teaches this limitation [see at least Srinivasan FIG. 13; [0146] "In operation 1324, autonomous execution of the route is resumed after completion of the first portion. … In some aspects, when the autonomous vehicle detects that the first portion of the route has been completed, the autonomous vehicle automatically (without operator input) resume autonomous navigation of the route."; [0068] "The motion planning system 305 commands the vehicle controls based at least in part on the predicted trajectories associated with the objects within the surrounding environment of the vehicle 102, the state data for the objects provided by the perception system 303, vehicle poses provided by the localizer system 330, map data 326, and route or route extension data provided by the navigator system 313. Stated differently, given information about the current locations of objects and/or predicted trajectories of objects within the surrounding environment of the vehicle 102, the motion planning system 305 determines control commands for the vehicle 102 that best navigate the vehicle 102 along the route or route extension relative to the objects at such locations and their predicted trajectories on acceptable roadways."; [0088] "The vehicle capability data 410 includes constraint data identifying a route segment property or properties (e.g., includes an unprotected left, is part of a controlled access highway, etc.) and routing graph modification data indicating what is to be done to route components having the indicated property or properties."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Funke to use … a determination ... that the AV is in a state suitable for autonomous operation, without requiring additional input from the remote assistant as disclosed in Srinivasan with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved safety and reliability of autonomous vehicles. [See at least Srinivasan [0031].]
As per claim 3 (representative of claim 13), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Funke discloses … wherein the machine-executable spatial path defines bounds that the AV is permitted to traverse [see at least Funke FIG. 5; [0062] "...The environment 400 includes invalid pull over areas 404 and a valid pull over area 406. In some examples, invalid pull over areas 404 and valid pull over area 406 may be displayed to a user of the remote assistance system (e.g., displayed on a GUI for viewing by the user). In some examples, invalid pull over areas 404 and valid pull over area 406 may be shown on a GUI as different colors, different textures, or other distinguishing characteristics so the user of the remote assistance system can easily identify valid areas for vehicle 402 to pull over."]
As per claim 6 (representative of claim 16), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Funke discloses … wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine a location of the endpoint based on a planned maneuver of the AV [see at least Funke [0084] "As shown in FIG. 8, reverse direction footprint 806 is angled with respect to the roadway lanes to allow vehicle 802 to more easily pull around obstacle 804 after stopping at reverse direction location footprint 806."; [0086] "In the example of FIG. 10, vehicle 802 has stopped at the reverse direction location footprint 806. In this situation, there is enough space between vehicle 802 and obstacle 804 for vehicle 802 to safely navigate around obstacle 804. At this point, vehicle 802 calculates a path 810 from its stopped location back onto the roadway."]
As per claim 7 (representative of claim 17), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Funke discloses … wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive an endpoint input from the remote assistant [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "230 The User of the Remote Assistance System Defines a Path for the Vehicle to Pull Out Onto the Roadway"]; and
adjust the endpoint based on the endpoint input from the remote assistant [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "232 The Vehicle Updates the Previous Path Based on the Vehicle's Current Location"]
As per claim 8 (representative of claim 18), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Funke discloses … wherein the machine-executed spatial path includes an avoidance area associated with one or more AV parameters that restrict the AV from navigating the avoidance area [see at least Funke FIGS. 4, 5; [0062] "In the example of FIG. 4, vehicle 402 communicates the trigger event to a remote assistance system (e.g., remote assistance system 102 shown in FIG. 1) requesting guidance on where to pull over so the fire truck can pass. The environment 400 includes invalid pull over areas 404 and a valid pull over area 406. In some examples, invalid pull over areas 404 and valid pull over area 406 may be displayed to a user of the remote assistance system (e.g., displayed on a GUI for viewing by the user). In some examples, invalid pull over areas 404 and valid pull over area 406 may be shown on a GUI as different colors, different textures, or other distinguishing characteristics so the user of the remote assistance system can easily identify valid areas for vehicle 402 to pull over."; [0063] "...As shown in FIG. 5, vehicle 402 calculates a path 410 from its current location to vehicle pull over location footprint 408."; [0049] "At operation 228, the process may include the vehicle reactivating a previous path being followed and creating a path for the vehicle to pull out onto the roadway from the pull over location."]
As per claim 9 (representative of claim 19), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Funke discloses … wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive a maneuver input from the remote assistant [see at least Funke FIG. 2A "214 The Remote Assistance System Communicates the Vehicle Pull Over Location Footprint to the Vehicle"]; and
adjust one or more navigation parameters associated with the spatial path based on the maneuver input [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "218 The Vehicle Plans a Path to the Vehicle Pull Over Location Footprint"; "224 Vehicle Stopped at Pull Over Location Footprint?"; No; "222 The Vehicle Drives to the Vehicle Pull Over Location Footprint Using the Path"; [0046] "At operation 224, the process may include determining whether the vehicle has stopped at the correct pull over location footprint (e.g., the location defined by the vehicle pull over location footprint coordinates and pose). If the vehicle has not yet stopped at the correct pull over location, process 200 returns to operation 222 and continues until the vehicle stops at the correct pull over location."]
As per claim 10, the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Funke discloses … wherein adjusting the one or more navigation parameters includes eliminating one or more stop points along the spatial path of the AV [see at least Funke FIG. 2B "224 Vehicle Stopped at Pull Over Location Footprint?"; No; "222 The Vehicle Drives to the Vehicle Pull Over Location Footprint Using the Path"; [0046] "At operation 224, the process may include determining whether the vehicle has stopped at the correct pull over location footprint (e.g., the location defined by the vehicle pull over location footprint coordinates and pose). If the vehicle has not yet stopped at the correct pull over location, process 200 returns to operation 222 and continues until the vehicle stops at the correct pull over location."]
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke, in view of Srinivasan and Diaz, et al. (Publication US 2018/0100743 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Diaz”.)
As per claim 4 (representative of claim 14), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Funke and Srinivasan fails to disclose … wherein the endpoint is located at a predetermined distance from the waypoint of the one or more waypoints. However, Diaz teaches this limitation [see at least Diaz [0013] "...a priority value is associated to a waypoint, the priority of a given waypoint is based on a distance defined according to a pre-established metric. The priority of a waypoint is computed as the distance between that waypoint and the target ... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Funke and Srivinasan to use … wherein the endpoint is located at a predetermined distance from the waypoint of the one or more waypoints as disclosed in Diaz with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of generating efficient paths under real-time constraints. [See at least Diaz [0007].]
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke, in view of Srinivasan and Buoro, et al. (Publication US 2018/0293444 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Buoro”.)
As per claim 5 (representative of claim 15), the combination of Funke and Srinivasan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Funke and Srinivasan fails to disclose … wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in response to determining, based at least in part on localization data from sensors of the AV, that the AV has reached the endpoint without transitioning out of the remote assistance mode, transmit an instruction to the AV to stop at the endpoint. However, Buoro teaches this limitation [see at least Buoro [0025] "… If no pests are found, at step 212, the automatic pest control monitoring system 100 continues monitoring activities for a predetermined period of time, until the autonomous vehicle 104 reaches an endpoint of a predetermined route, or the system 100 is manually stopped."; [0012] "...The system 100 includes a pest control monitoring server 102 in wireless communication with at least one autonomous vehicle such as a remotely controlled flying drone 104a, a land roving vehicle 104b, and the like. Flying drone 104a and land roving vehicle 104b are referenced generally herein as “autonomous vehicle 104.”; [0013] "...the autonomous vehicle 104 may be pre-programmed to traverse a given path or route without receiving control feedback or input from the pest control monitoring server 102."; [0014] "In addition, the autonomous vehicle 104 may be in communication with a Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite 106 to determine the exact location (i.e. latitude and longitude) of the autonomous vehicle 104 at any given time."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Funke and Srivinasan to use … wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in response to determining, based at least in part on localization data from sensors of the AV, that the AV has reached the endpoint without transitioning out of the remote assistance mode, transmit an instruction to the AV to stop at the endpoint as disclosed in Buoro with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively responding to environmental conditions. [See at least Buoro [0004].]
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 PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights