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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 05/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
2. Regarding the rejection made under 35 USC 103, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 5, 9, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen (US 20220325985, hereinafter Mullen) in view of Battles et al. (US 20190049960, hereinafter Battles) and Nagao et al. (US 10967833, hereinafter Nagao) in further view of Amla et al. (US 20170168503, hereinafter Amla).
Regarding claim 1, Mullen teaches a system (see at least Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (see at least Fig. 1 and [0030]: “As stated above, a behavioral system, such as behavioral system 120, may communicate with an entity or be included in/on an entity. For example, behavioral system 120 may be housed (e.g., protected inside of and control the autonomous operation of vehicle 120). Behavioral system may include, for example, any type of sensor 122, transmitter 123, manual input and/or display 124, processor 121, receiver 125, controllers 126, and memory 127.”); and
a memory in communication with the processor and having a control module, the control module having instructions that, when executed by the processor (see at least Fig. 1 and [0030]: “Behavioral system may include, for example, any type of sensor 122, transmitter 123, manual input and/or display 124, processor 121, receiver 125, controllers 126, and memory 127.”; [0037]: “Memory 127 may be also be included in vehicle 110 (or any other entity of topology 100). Memory 127 may house numerous data structures (e.g., databases) and associated applications (e.g., database manipulation software) which may be called, utilized, and modified by processor 121.”), cause the processor to:
process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle to identify suspicious activity in the surroundings of the first vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0027]: “Vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may autonomously drive in a particular formation during a particular threat level for the U.S. (e.g., DEFCON 2), threat level for an enemy entity (e.g., enemy platoon), or threat level for a particular event (e.g., the threat level to trigger a defensive posture may be different when attacking versus when traveling). Threat levels may, for example, be thresholds that determine the behavior of an entity. For example, during an attack, small-arms fire may be associated to a number (e.g., 10) while more aggressive fire such as rocket propelled grenades are associated a higher, or different number, (e.g., 20). Two threat levels separated by a number between these two (e.g., 15) may cause the entity to operate differently dependent on if it is being attacked, or has the possibility of being attacked, by small-arms fire versus rocket propelled grenade fire.”; [0028]: “Damage and/or impact information for vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may be shared by one another. For example, vehicle 153 may update its damage, hit, location, status, behavior, or other information on memory devices stored on vehicles 151-152, 154, and package 155 periodically (e.g., every 5 seconds), continuously, or when an event occurs (e.g., when damage occurs or when a driving hazard is faced). Vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may be programmed to respond to such events depending on, for example, the event.”) and the sensor data was collected by a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to the first vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0025]: “Autonomous vehicles 151-154 may communicate with package 155 by, for example, obtaining positioning data (e.g., GPS positioning data) from package 155 and providing package 155 with data on how to operate (e.g., package 155 may be told to “STOP” or “RUN” when package 155 is under attack).”; [0036]: “The component being controlled (either directly or indirectly) may also contain a variety of sensors and may provide feedback from these sensors to the controller or provide feedback directly. Such feedback may then be provide to processor 121. Using the example of the gun, feedback may be a confirmation of the direction that the gun is pointed in (such that the processor is not burdened with calculating the direction the gun is pointed in but is provided the direction by a sensor located on the gun and coupled to the controller)…All of this information may be utilized to determine the best behavior of vehicle 110 or other entities such as vehicles 151-154 (e.g., the behavior most likely to achieve a desired goal).”), and
responsive to identifying the suspicious activity, control the second vehicle by sending instructions to the second vehicle for executing a reactive maneuver (see at least [0003]: “An autonomous military vehicle (e.g., a land-based, water-based, air-based, or space-based vehicle) is provided that is operable to defend, for example, a package (e.g., a location, person, or vehicle) …The defensive vehicle may then protect the package from attack. The defensive vehicle may be provided with different behaviors dependent on a situation or action event. For example, the defensive vehicle may be in a “follow and shield” behavior until the package, a different vehicle, or the defensive vehicle is attacked. At this point, the behavior of the defensive vehicle may change to, for example, a “counter-offensive”, “shield and escape”, or “protect and defend” behavior.”; [0029]: “For example, if threat 160 is sensed (e.g., threat 160 shoots a projectile that is detected, impacts, and/or damages vehicle 151-154 or package 155) then one or more vehicles 151-154 or package 155 may autonomously respond to threat 160. For example, vehicles close to threat 160 may shield package 155 from threat 160 and attack threat 160. Furthering this example, vehicles 151 and 153 may be autonomously driven to (or prompted to be manually driven to) locations 171 and 173, respectively, where vehicles 151, 153, and 154 may attack threat 160. Furthering this example even more, the speed of vehicle 152 and package 155 may be increased and the direction of vehicle 152 and 155 may be changed if threat 160 is only determined to be from a particular direction. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that numerous response techniques may be provided to one or more threat in accordance with the principles of the present invention.”; [0030]: “As stated above, a behavioral system, such as behavioral system 120, may communicate with an entity or be included in/on an entity. For example, behavioral system 120 may be housed (e.g., protected inside of and control the autonomous operation of vehicle 120). Behavioral system may include, for example, any type of sensor 122, transmitter 123, manual input and/or display 124, processor 121, receiver 125, controllers 126, and memory 127.”).
Mullen fails to explicitly teach processing sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle.
However, Nagao teaches a system and method for monitoring vehicles that process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle (see at least Figs. 2-3 and Col. 6, lines 3-8: “The security alarm system may be configured to, for example, detect unauthorized entry into the vehicle, unauthorized use of the vehicle, attempts to obtain access to the vehicle, and the like. The security alarm system 84 may be configured to use any of the sensors of the sensor system 26, discussed above, as well as use dedicated security cameras.”; Col. 6, lines 46-51: “As indicated by method box 102, in various aspects, the method may begin by grouping a plurality of vehicles together in communication with a network 58 in order to collectively monitor and detect evidence of theft or unauthorized intrusion.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen to incorporate the teachings of Nagao and provide a means to process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect a situation where unauthorized intrusion may occur.
The combination of Mullen and Nagao fails to explicitly teach that the first vehicle is parked in a parking space and maneuvering the second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space.
However, Battles teaches a method and apparatus for operating autonomous vehicles that comprises a first vehicle parked in a parking space and maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space (see at least Fig. 4A and [0065]: “Referring to FIG. 4A once again, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the second vehicle 410 and its strategy mode and/or actions. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the intended travel 412-1 of the second vehicle 410 as it seeks to proceed straight through the parking lot. However, the autonomous vehicle 405 may have additional information related to other vehicles or aspects of the environment, e.g., a reversing movement of vehicle 403-11 out of parking space 401-11, a movement of a pedestrian from a vicinity of vehicle 403-11, or any other incident that should be avoided. Because the autonomous vehicle 405 may recognize a conflict between the operations of the second vehicle 410 and the additional information related to the direction of intended travel 412-1, the autonomous vehicle 405 may select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the operations by the second vehicle 410. One example action that the autonomous vehicle may take is shown as travel arrow 408-1. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may block the movement of the second vehicle 410 along intended travel 412-1 so as prevent an incident, e.g., a collision with vehicle 403-11 reversing out of parking space 401-11, or a contact with a pedestrian moving out from a vicinity of vehicle 403-11.”; [0066] As another example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the intended travel 412-3 of the second vehicle 410 as it proceeds to turn left into parking space 401-4. However, the autonomous vehicle 405 may have additional information related to other vehicles or aspects of the environment, e.g., a reversing movement of vehicle 403-3 out of parking space 401-3, a movement of a pedestrian from a vicinity of vehicle 403-3, or any other incident that should be avoided. Because the autonomous vehicle 405 may recognize a conflict between the operations of the second vehicle 410 and the additional information related to the direction of intended travel 412-3, the autonomous vehicle 405 may select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the operations by the second vehicle 410. One example action that the autonomous vehicle may take is shown as travel arrow 408-2. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may block the movement of the second vehicle 410 along intended travel 412-3 so as prevent an incident, e.g., a collision with vehicle 403-3 reversing out of parking space 401-3, or a contact with a pedestrian moving out from a vicinity of vehicle 403-3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen and Nagao to incorporate the teachings of Battles and provide a first vehicle parked in a parking space and maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to recognize a conflict between the operations of vehicles and select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the conflict [0065].
The combination of Mullen, Nagao, and Battles fails to explicitly teach a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to the first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle. However, Amla teaches a system and method for autonomous vehicle towing that comprises a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to a first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration (see at least Fig. 2 and [0044]: “Lead vehicle 201 (corresponding to the above-noted lead vehicle 100) and follow vehicle 221 (corresponding to the above-noted follow vehicle 120) are illustrated as being arranged in sequence on surface 211, preferably a roadway or other travel surface.”; [0060]: “Link 503 illustrates a wireless connection between two vehicles with two interposing vehicles, such as link 503 between transceiver 202 and transceiver 642. In various embodiments of the invention, transceiver 222 in follow vehicle 221 is wirelessly connected to one or more of the other wireless transceivers, including transceiver 202 in vehicle 201.”) and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 4B, 6B, and [0058]: “For example, if the controller 204 detects that lead vehicle 201 has swerved to avoid an object or hole, it may be desirable to increase travel distances. This may be done, for example, in a long convoy by signaling vehicle 671 to significantly reduce speed, signaling vehicle 661 to reduce speed to a lesser amount, signaling vehicle 651 to reduce speed to an even lesser amount, and so on, such that the gap between each pair of vehicles in the convoy is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen, Nagao, and Battles to incorporate the teachings of Amla and provide a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to a first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to for the first vehicle to control the second vehicle to follow the lead vehicle while communicating wirelessly [0044].
Regarding claim 5, modified Mullen teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mullen further teaches wherein the suspicious activity further includes at least one of: property destruction in the surroundings of the first vehicle, unauthorized physical interaction with the first vehicle, and a party wielding a weapon in the surroundings of the first vehicle (see at least [0029]: “For example, if threat 160 is sensed (e.g., threat 160 shoots a projectile that is detected, impacts, and/or damages vehicle 151-154 or package 155) then one or more vehicles 151-154 or package 155 may autonomously respond to threat 160. For example, vehicles close to threat 160 may shield package 155 from threat 160 and attack threat 160. Furthering this example, vehicles 151 and 153 may be autonomously driven to (or prompted to be manually driven to) locations 171 and 173, respectively, where vehicles 151, 153, and 154 may attack threat 160. Furthering this example even more, the speed of vehicle 152 and package 155 may be increased and the direction of vehicle 152 and 155 may be changed if threat 160 is only determined to be from a particular direction. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that numerous response techniques may be provided to one or more threat in accordance with the principles of the present invention.”).
Regarding claim 9, Mullen teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor (see at least Fig. 1 and [0030]: “As stated above, a behavioral system, such as behavioral system 120, may communicate with an entity or be included in/on an entity. For example, behavioral system 120 may be housed (e.g., protected inside of and control the autonomous operation of vehicle 120). Behavioral system may include, for example, any type of sensor 122, transmitter 123, manual input and/or display 124, processor 121, receiver 125, controllers 126, and memory 127.”), cause the processor to:
process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle to identify suspicious activity in the surroundings of the first vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0027]: “Vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may autonomously drive in a particular formation during a particular threat level for the U.S. (e.g., DEFCON 2), threat level for an enemy entity (e.g., enemy platoon), or threat level for a particular event (e.g., the threat level to trigger a defensive posture may be different when attacking versus when traveling). Threat levels may, for example, be thresholds that determine the behavior of an entity. For example, during an attack, small-arms fire may be associated to a number (e.g., 10) while more aggressive fire such as rocket propelled grenades are associated a higher, or different number, (e.g., 20). Two threat levels separated by a number between these two (e.g., 15) may cause the entity to operate differently dependent on if it is being attacked, or has the possibility of being attacked, by small-arms fire versus rocket propelled grenade fire.”; [0028]: “Damage and/or impact information for vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may be shared by one another. For example, vehicle 153 may update its damage, hit, location, status, behavior, or other information on memory devices stored on vehicles 151-152, 154, and package 155 periodically (e.g., every 5 seconds), continuously, or when an event occurs (e.g., when damage occurs or when a driving hazard is faced). Vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may be programmed to respond to such events depending on, for example, the event.”) and the sensor data was collected by a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to the first vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0025]: “Autonomous vehicles 151-154 may communicate with package 155 by, for example, obtaining positioning data (e.g., GPS positioning data) from package 155 and providing package 155 with data on how to operate (e.g., package 155 may be told to “STOP” or “RUN” when package 155 is under attack).”; [0036]: “The component being controlled (either directly or indirectly) may also contain a variety of sensors and may provide feedback from these sensors to the controller or provide feedback directly. Such feedback may then be provide to processor 121. Using the example of the gun, feedback may be a confirmation of the direction that the gun is pointed in (such that the processor is not burdened with calculating the direction the gun is pointed in but is provided the direction by a sensor located on the gun and coupled to the controller)…All of this information may be utilized to determine the best behavior of vehicle 110 or other entities such as vehicles 151-154 (e.g., the behavior most likely to achieve a desired goal).”); and
responsive to identifying the suspicious activity, control the second vehicle by sending instructions to the second vehicle for executing a reactive maneuver (see at least [0003]: “An autonomous military vehicle (e.g., a land-based, water-based, air-based, or space-based vehicle) is provided that is operable to defend, for example, a package (e.g., a location, person, or vehicle) …The defensive vehicle may then protect the package from attack. The defensive vehicle may be provided with different behaviors dependent on a situation or action event. For example, the defensive vehicle may be in a “follow and shield” behavior until the package, a different vehicle, or the defensive vehicle is attacked. At this point, the behavior of the defensive vehicle may change to, for example, a “counter-offensive”, “shield and escape”, or “protect and defend” behavior.”; [0029]: “For example, if threat 160 is sensed (e.g., threat 160 shoots a projectile that is detected, impacts, and/or damages vehicle 151-154 or package 155) then one or more vehicles 151-154 or package 155 may autonomously respond to threat 160. For example, vehicles close to threat 160 may shield package 155 from threat 160 and attack threat 160. Furthering this example, vehicles 151 and 153 may be autonomously driven to (or prompted to be manually driven to) locations 171 and 173, respectively, where vehicles 151, 153, and 154 may attack threat 160. Furthering this example even more, the speed of vehicle 152 and package 155 may be increased and the direction of vehicle 152 and 155 may be changed if threat 160 is only determined to be from a particular direction. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that numerous response techniques may be provided to one or more threat in accordance with the principles of the present invention.”; [0030]: “As stated above, a behavioral system, such as behavioral system 120, may communicate with an entity or be included in/on an entity. For example, behavioral system 120 may be housed (e.g., protected inside of and control the autonomous operation of vehicle 120). Behavioral system may include, for example, any type of sensor 122, transmitter 123, manual input and/or display 124, processor 121, receiver 125, controllers 126, and memory 127.”).
Mullen fails to explicitly teach processing sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle.
However, Nagao teaches a system and method for monitoring vehicles that process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle (see at least Figs. 2-3 and Col. 6, lines 3-8: “The security alarm system may be configured to, for example, detect unauthorized entry into the vehicle, unauthorized use of the vehicle, attempts to obtain access to the vehicle, and the like. The security alarm system 84 may be configured to use any of the sensors of the sensor system 26, discussed above, as well as use dedicated security cameras.”; Col. 6, lines 46-51: “As indicated by method box 102, in various aspects, the method may begin by grouping a plurality of vehicles together in communication with a network 58 in order to collectively monitor and detect evidence of theft or unauthorized intrusion.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen to incorporate the teachings of Nagao and provide a means to process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect a situation where unauthorized intrusion may occur.
The combination of Mullen and Nagao fails to explicitly teach that the first vehicle is parked in a parking space and maneuvering the second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space.
However, Battles teaches a method and apparatus for operating autonomous vehicles that comprises a first vehicle parked in a parking space and maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space (see at least Fig. 4A and [0065]: “Referring to FIG. 4A once again, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the second vehicle 410 and its strategy mode and/or actions. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the intended travel 412-1 of the second vehicle 410 as it seeks to proceed straight through the parking lot. However, the autonomous vehicle 405 may have additional information related to other vehicles or aspects of the environment, e.g., a reversing movement of vehicle 403-11 out of parking space 401-11, a movement of a pedestrian from a vicinity of vehicle 403-11, or any other incident that should be avoided. Because the autonomous vehicle 405 may recognize a conflict between the operations of the second vehicle 410 and the additional information related to the direction of intended travel 412-1, the autonomous vehicle 405 may select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the operations by the second vehicle 410. One example action that the autonomous vehicle may take is shown as travel arrow 408-1. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may block the movement of the second vehicle 410 along intended travel 412-1 so as prevent an incident, e.g., a collision with vehicle 403-11 reversing out of parking space 401-11, or a contact with a pedestrian moving out from a vicinity of vehicle 403-11.”; [0066] As another example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the intended travel 412-3 of the second vehicle 410 as it proceeds to turn left into parking space 401-4. However, the autonomous vehicle 405 may have additional information related to other vehicles or aspects of the environment, e.g., a reversing movement of vehicle 403-3 out of parking space 401-3, a movement of a pedestrian from a vicinity of vehicle 403-3, or any other incident that should be avoided. Because the autonomous vehicle 405 may recognize a conflict between the operations of the second vehicle 410 and the additional information related to the direction of intended travel 412-3, the autonomous vehicle 405 may select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the operations by the second vehicle 410. One example action that the autonomous vehicle may take is shown as travel arrow 408-2. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may block the movement of the second vehicle 410 along intended travel 412-3 so as prevent an incident, e.g., a collision with vehicle 403-3 reversing out of parking space 401-3, or a contact with a pedestrian moving out from a vicinity of vehicle 403-3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen and Nagao to incorporate the teachings of Battles and provide a first vehicle parked in a parking space and maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to recognize a conflict between the operations of vehicles and select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the conflict [0065].
The combination of Mullen, Nagao, and Battles fails to explicitly teach a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to the first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle. However, Amla teaches a system and method for autonomous vehicle towing that comprises a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to a first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration (see at least Fig. 2 and [0044]: “Lead vehicle 201 (corresponding to the above-noted lead vehicle 100) and follow vehicle 221 (corresponding to the above-noted follow vehicle 120) are illustrated as being arranged in sequence on surface 211, preferably a roadway or other travel surface.”; [0060]: “Link 503 illustrates a wireless connection between two vehicles with two interposing vehicles, such as link 503 between transceiver 202 and transceiver 642. In various embodiments of the invention, transceiver 222 in follow vehicle 221 is wirelessly connected to one or more of the other wireless transceivers, including transceiver 202 in vehicle 201.”) and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 4B, 6B, and [0058]: “For example, if the controller 204 detects that lead vehicle 201 has swerved to avoid an object or hole, it may be desirable to increase travel distances. This may be done, for example, in a long convoy by signaling vehicle 671 to significantly reduce speed, signaling vehicle 661 to reduce speed to a lesser amount, signaling vehicle 651 to reduce speed to an even lesser amount, and so on, such that the gap between each pair of vehicles in the convoy is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen, Nagao, and Battles to incorporate the teachings of Amla and provide a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to a first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to for the first vehicle to control the second vehicle to follow the lead vehicle while communicating wirelessly [0044].
Regarding claim 14, Mullen teaches a method (see at least Fig. 1 and abstract: “This invention provides impact detection and vehicle cooperation to achieve particular goals and determine particular threat levels.”), comprising:
processing sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle to identify suspicious activity in the surroundings of the first vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0027]: “Vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may autonomously drive in a particular formation during a particular threat level for the U.S. (e.g., DEFCON 2), threat level for an enemy entity (e.g., enemy platoon), or threat level for a particular event (e.g., the threat level to trigger a defensive posture may be different when attacking versus when traveling). Threat levels may, for example, be thresholds that determine the behavior of an entity. For example, during an attack, small-arms fire may be associated to a number (e.g., 10) while more aggressive fire such as rocket propelled grenades are associated a higher, or different number, (e.g., 20). Two threat levels separated by a number between these two (e.g., 15) may cause the entity to operate differently dependent on if it is being attacked, or has the possibility of being attacked, by small-arms fire versus rocket propelled grenade fire.”; [0028]: “Damage and/or impact information for vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may be shared by one another. For example, vehicle 153 may update its damage, hit, location, status, behavior, or other information on memory devices stored on vehicles 151-152, 154, and package 155 periodically (e.g., every 5 seconds), continuously, or when an event occurs (e.g., when damage occurs or when a driving hazard is faced). Vehicles 151-154 and package 155 may be programmed to respond to such events depending on, for example, the event.”) and the sensor data was collected by a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to the first vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0025]: “Autonomous vehicles 151-154 may communicate with package 155 by, for example, obtaining positioning data (e.g., GPS positioning data) from package 155 and providing package 155 with data on how to operate (e.g., package 155 may be told to “STOP” or “RUN” when package 155 is under attack).”; [0036]: “The component being controlled (either directly or indirectly) may also contain a variety of sensors and may provide feedback from these sensors to the controller or provide feedback directly. Such feedback may then be provide to processor 121. Using the example of the gun, feedback may be a confirmation of the direction that the gun is pointed in (such that the processor is not burdened with calculating the direction the gun is pointed in but is provided the direction by a sensor located on the gun and coupled to the controller)…All of this information may be utilized to determine the best behavior of vehicle 110 or other entities such as vehicles 151-154 (e.g., the behavior most likely to achieve a desired goal).”); and
in response to identifying the suspicious activity, controlling the second vehicle by sending instructions to the second vehicle for executing a reactive maneuver (see at least [0003]: “An autonomous military vehicle (e.g., a land-based, water-based, air-based, or space-based vehicle) is provided that is operable to defend, for example, a package (e.g., a location, person, or vehicle) …The defensive vehicle may then protect the package from attack. The defensive vehicle may be provided with different behaviors dependent on a situation or action event. For example, the defensive vehicle may be in a “follow and shield” behavior until the package, a different vehicle, or the defensive vehicle is attacked. At this point, the behavior of the defensive vehicle may change to, for example, a “counter-offensive”, “shield and escape”, or “protect and defend” behavior.”; [0029]: “For example, if threat 160 is sensed (e.g., threat 160 shoots a projectile that is detected, impacts, and/or damages vehicle 151-154 or package 155) then one or more vehicles 151-154 or package 155 may autonomously respond to threat 160. For example, vehicles close to threat 160 may shield package 155 from threat 160 and attack threat 160. Furthering this example, vehicles 151 and 153 may be autonomously driven to (or prompted to be manually driven to) locations 171 and 173, respectively, where vehicles 151, 153, and 154 may attack threat 160. Furthering this example even more, the speed of vehicle 152 and package 155 may be increased and the direction of vehicle 152 and 155 may be changed if threat 160 is only determined to be from a particular direction. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that numerous response techniques may be provided to one or more threat in accordance with the principles of the present invention.”; [0030]: “As stated above, a behavioral system, such as behavioral system 120, may communicate with an entity or be included in/on an entity. For example, behavioral system 120 may be housed (e.g., protected inside of and control the autonomous operation of vehicle 120). Behavioral system may include, for example, any type of sensor 122, transmitter 123, manual input and/or display 124, processor 121, receiver 125, controllers 126, and memory 127.”).
Mullen fails to explicitly teach processing sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle.
However, Nagao teaches a system and method for monitoring vehicles that process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle (see at least Figs. 2-3 and Col. 6, lines 3-8: “The security alarm system may be configured to, for example, detect unauthorized entry into the vehicle, unauthorized use of the vehicle, attempts to obtain access to the vehicle, and the like. The security alarm system 84 may be configured to use any of the sensors of the sensor system 26, discussed above, as well as use dedicated security cameras.”; Col. 6, lines 46-51: “As indicated by method box 102, in various aspects, the method may begin by grouping a plurality of vehicles together in communication with a network 58 in order to collectively monitor and detect evidence of theft or unauthorized intrusion.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen to incorporate the teachings of Nagao and provide a means to process sensor data about surroundings of a first vehicle, wherein the suspicious activity includes attempted unauthorized access to an interior of the first vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect a situation where unauthorized intrusion may occur.
The combination of Mullen and Nagao fails to explicitly teach that the first vehicle is parked in a parking space and maneuvering the second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space.
However, Battles teaches a method and apparatus for operating autonomous vehicles that comprises a first vehicle parked in a parking space and maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space (see at least Fig. 4A and [0065]: “Referring to FIG. 4A once again, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the second vehicle 410 and its strategy mode and/or actions. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the intended travel 412-1 of the second vehicle 410 as it seeks to proceed straight through the parking lot. However, the autonomous vehicle 405 may have additional information related to other vehicles or aspects of the environment, e.g., a reversing movement of vehicle 403-11 out of parking space 401-11, a movement of a pedestrian from a vicinity of vehicle 403-11, or any other incident that should be avoided. Because the autonomous vehicle 405 may recognize a conflict between the operations of the second vehicle 410 and the additional information related to the direction of intended travel 412-1, the autonomous vehicle 405 may select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the operations by the second vehicle 410. One example action that the autonomous vehicle may take is shown as travel arrow 408-1. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may block the movement of the second vehicle 410 along intended travel 412-1 so as prevent an incident, e.g., a collision with vehicle 403-11 reversing out of parking space 401-11, or a contact with a pedestrian moving out from a vicinity of vehicle 403-11.”; [0066] As another example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may detect the intended travel 412-3 of the second vehicle 410 as it proceeds to turn left into parking space 401-4. However, the autonomous vehicle 405 may have additional information related to other vehicles or aspects of the environment, e.g., a reversing movement of vehicle 403-3 out of parking space 401-3, a movement of a pedestrian from a vicinity of vehicle 403-3, or any other incident that should be avoided. Because the autonomous vehicle 405 may recognize a conflict between the operations of the second vehicle 410 and the additional information related to the direction of intended travel 412-3, the autonomous vehicle 405 may select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the operations by the second vehicle 410. One example action that the autonomous vehicle may take is shown as travel arrow 408-2. For example, the autonomous vehicle 405 may block the movement of the second vehicle 410 along intended travel 412-3 so as prevent an incident, e.g., a collision with vehicle 403-3 reversing out of parking space 401-3, or a contact with a pedestrian moving out from a vicinity of vehicle 403-3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen and Nagao to incorporate the teachings of Battles and provide a first vehicle parked in a parking space and maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict a movement of the first vehicle from the parking space, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to recognize a conflict between the operations of vehicles and select a preventative strategy mode to prevent the conflict [0065].
The combination of Mullen, Nagao, and Battles fails to explicitly teach a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to the first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle. However, Amla teaches a system and method for autonomous vehicle towing that comprises a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to a first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration (see at least Fig. 2 and [0044]: “Lead vehicle 201 (corresponding to the above-noted lead vehicle 100) and follow vehicle 221 (corresponding to the above-noted follow vehicle 120) are illustrated as being arranged in sequence on surface 211, preferably a roadway or other travel surface.”; [0060]: “Link 503 illustrates a wireless connection between two vehicles with two interposing vehicles, such as link 503 between transceiver 202 and transceiver 642. In various embodiments of the invention, transceiver 222 in follow vehicle 221 is wirelessly connected to one or more of the other wireless transceivers, including transceiver 202 in vehicle 201.”) and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 4B, 6B, and [0058]: “For example, if the controller 204 detects that lead vehicle 201 has swerved to avoid an object or hole, it may be desirable to increase travel distances. This may be done, for example, in a long convoy by signaling vehicle 671 to significantly reduce speed, signaling vehicle 661 to reduce speed to a lesser amount, signaling vehicle 651 to reduce speed to an even lesser amount, and so on, such that the gap between each pair of vehicles in the convoy is increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen, Nagao, and Battles to incorporate the teachings of Amla and provide a second vehicle that is wirelessly connected to a first vehicle in a hitchless towing configuration and control the second vehicle by sending instructions from the first vehicle to the second vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to for the first vehicle to control the second vehicle to follow the lead vehicle while communicating wirelessly [0044].
Regarding claim 18, modified Mullen teaches the limitations of claim 14. Mullen further teaches wherein the suspicious activity further includes at least one of: property destruction in the surroundings of the first vehicle, unauthorized physical interaction with the first vehicle, and a party wielding a weapon in the surroundings of the first vehicle (see at least [0029]: “For example, if threat 160 is sensed (e.g., threat 160 shoots a projectile that is detected, impacts, and/or damages vehicle 151-154 or package 155) then one or more vehicles 151-154 or package 155 may autonomously respond to threat 160. For example, vehicles close to threat 160 may shield package 155 from threat 160 and attack threat 160. Furthering this example, vehicles 151 and 153 may be autonomously driven to (or prompted to be manually driven to) locations 171 and 173, respectively, where vehicles 151, 153, and 154 may attack threat 160. Furthering this example even more, the speed of vehicle 152 and package 155 may be increased and the direction of vehicle 152 and 155 may be changed if threat 160 is only determined to be from a particular direction. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that numerous response techniques may be provided to one or more threat in accordance with the principles of the present invention.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 3, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Mullen (US 20220325985, hereinafter Mullen) in view of Battles et al. (US 20190049960, hereinafter Battles) and Nagao et al. (US 10967833, hereinafter Nagao) and Amla et al. (US 20170168503, hereinafter Amla) in further view of Harvey (US 20170038777, hereinafter Harvey).
Regarding claim 3, modified Mullen teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Mullen fails to explicitly teach wherein the reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering the second vehicle to restrict access to a door of the first vehicle.
However, Harvey teaches a method and system for controlling an autonomous vehicle wherein a reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict access to a door of a first vehicle (see at least Figs. 6-8, 37 and [0076]: “A situation is envisioned where a fleet of small autonomous vehicles are stored in an area with a high cost of space, such as in a city center, and used to make deliveries over nearby areas. The vehicles are parked in an array of closely spaced columns. Some of these columns are too closely spaced to allow access by drivers, the cargo or loading machines or personnel. Some vehicles in the columns are parked bumper to bumper so that only the first and last vehicles in the columns can move. There are access aisles at the ends of the columns leading to exits from the vehicle storage area. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 1.”; [0104]: “It then forms a list of movements to be performed and transmits the relevant movements over the network to the vehicles that need to move. Blocking vehicle 40 and selected vehicle 20 in accordance with movements in the list move over path 44 to position the selected vehicle to exit the parking array.”; [0105]: “Referring to FIG. 8 the process of FIG. 7 is completed with the selected vehicle 20 in position to be entered by the user and the blocking vehicle returned to the array. The array now has a vacant space to accept a new vehicle if one comes along. It can be seen that this process requires coordinated control of multiple autonomous vehicles because of the need to move multiple vehicles from inaccessible locations.”; [0211]: “FIG. 37 shows a convoy of police vehicles capturing a fugitive vehicle. Control vehicle 500 has formed a convoy with escorted vehicles 501 to capture a dangerous fugitive vehicle 502 in a high speed chase. Traveling on a two lane road 440 the fugitive vehicle is stopped at a choke point, here a small bridge 503, by position the control vehicle to restrict its movements. The escorted vehicle(s) place themselves based on the full range of communication methods and modes described in other embodiments.” Harvey teaches moving a second autonomous vehicle to block a door access to a first vehicle in a parking scenario and in a convoy of police vehicles capturing a fugitive vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen to incorporate the teachings of Harvey and provide a reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict access to a door of a first vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to restrict the movements of the first vehicle [0211].
Regarding claim 11, modified Mullen teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Mullen fails to explicitly teach wherein the reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering the second vehicle to restrict access to a door of the first vehicle.
However, Harvey teaches a method and system for controlling an autonomous vehicle wherein a reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict access to a door of a first vehicle (see at least Figs. 6-8, 37 and [0076]: “A situation is envisioned where a fleet of small autonomous vehicles are stored in an area with a high cost of space, such as in a city center, and used to make deliveries over nearby areas. The vehicles are parked in an array of closely spaced columns. Some of these columns are too closely spaced to allow access by drivers, the cargo or loading machines or personnel. Some vehicles in the columns are parked bumper to bumper so that only the first and last vehicles in the columns can move. There are access aisles at the ends of the columns leading to exits from the vehicle storage area. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 1.”; [0104]: “It then forms a list of movements to be performed and transmits the relevant movements over the network to the vehicles that need to move. Blocking vehicle 40 and selected vehicle 20 in accordance with movements in the list move over path 44 to position the selected vehicle to exit the parking array.”; [0105]: “Referring to FIG. 8 the process of FIG. 7 is completed with the selected vehicle 20 in position to be entered by the user and the blocking vehicle returned to the array. The array now has a vacant space to accept a new vehicle if one comes along. It can be seen that this process requires coordinated control of multiple autonomous vehicles because of the need to move multiple vehicles from inaccessible locations.”; [0211]: “FIG. 37 shows a convoy of police vehicles capturing a fugitive vehicle. Control vehicle 500 has formed a convoy with escorted vehicles 501 to capture a dangerous fugitive vehicle 502 in a high speed chase. Traveling on a two lane road 440 the fugitive vehicle is stopped at a choke point, here a small bridge 503, by position the control vehicle to restrict its movements. The escorted vehicle(s) place themselves based on the full range of communication methods and modes described in other embodiments.” Harvey teaches moving a second autonomous vehicle to block a door access to a first vehicle in a parking scenario and in a convoy of police vehicles capturing a fugitive vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen to incorporate the teachings of Harvey and provide a reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict access to a door of a first vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to restrict the movements of the first vehicle [0211].
Regarding claim 16, modified Mullen teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Mullen fails to explicitly teach wherein the reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering the second vehicle to restrict access to a door of the first vehicle.
However, Harvey teaches a method and system for controlling an autonomous vehicle wherein a reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict access to a door of a first vehicle (see at least Figs. 6-8, 37 and [0076]: “A situation is envisioned where a fleet of small autonomous vehicles are stored in an area with a high cost of space, such as in a city center, and used to make deliveries over nearby areas. The vehicles are parked in an array of closely spaced columns. Some of these columns are too closely spaced to allow access by drivers, the cargo or loading machines or personnel. Some vehicles in the columns are parked bumper to bumper so that only the first and last vehicles in the columns can move. There are access aisles at the ends of the columns leading to exits from the vehicle storage area. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 1.”; [0104]: “It then forms a list of movements to be performed and transmits the relevant movements over the network to the vehicles that need to move. Blocking vehicle 40 and selected vehicle 20 in accordance with movements in the list move over path 44 to position the selected vehicle to exit the parking array.”; [0105]: “Referring to FIG. 8 the process of FIG. 7 is completed with the selected vehicle 20 in position to be entered by the user and the blocking vehicle returned to the array. The array now has a vacant space to accept a new vehicle if one comes along. It can be seen that this process requires coordinated control of multiple autonomous vehicles because of the need to move multiple vehicles from inaccessible locations.”; [0211]: “FIG. 37 shows a convoy of police vehicles capturing a fugitive vehicle. Control vehicle 500 has formed a convoy with escorted vehicles 501 to capture a dangerous fugitive vehicle 502 in a high speed chase. Traveling on a two lane road 440 the fugitive vehicle is stopped at a choke point, here a small bridge 503, by position the control vehicle to restrict its movements. The escorted vehicle(s) place themselves based on the full range of communication methods and modes described in other embodiments.” Harvey teaches moving a second autonomous vehicle to block a door access to a first vehicle in a parking scenario and in a convoy of police vehicles capturing a fugitive vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mullen to incorporate the teachings of Harvey and provide a reactive maneuver further includes maneuvering a second vehicle to restrict access to a door of a first vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to restrict the movements of the first vehicle [0211].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time).
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights