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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
The examiner received amendments to the specification and claims in addition to remarks/arguments dated 18 September 2025 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 03 July 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding specification objections, the examiner notes that the informality of note has been corrected. Therefore, all outstanding specification objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that through cancellation or amendment of the noted claims, that all outstanding objections have been addressed. Therefore, all outstanding claim objections are withdrawn. However, new claim objections, necessitated by claim amendment, are presented below.
Regarding outstanding double patenting, the examiner confirms receipt of a terminal disclaimer and withdraws the outstanding double patenting rejections.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner has reviewed the amended claim language and canceled claims and agrees that each 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been addressed. Regarding terms that were noted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), language has been amended or canceled to provide sufficient structure. For example, revision of “machine” to “vehicle”, removal of “processing unit”, and reciting “circuitry” with description as to what the circuitry does in claim 18. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 3 are found persuasive. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, the examiner notes that claim 18 is no longer interpreted as a single-means claim. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner notes that the claims at least amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (mental process, as noted). Further, consideration has been provided to the amended claim language, and the examiner does not interpret the claims to pertain to/be drawn to living subject matter. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot due to amendments made to the claim set. However, for clarity of record, the examiner notes that applicant argues that the prior art of note does not disclose or suggest the remote system performing a determination of an action and analyzing the action to verify that a policy is met. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the interview dated 17 September 2025, “remote system” is broad and allows the examiner to assign this term broadly to prior art, such that the prior art continues to read upon the claim set. The examiner submits multiple instances/interpretations in the corresponding claim rejections below where separate teachings/disclosure from the prior art of note continues to read upon the claim language. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, are found below.
Status of Claims
The claim set dated 18 September 2025 is the most recent revision of the claim set. Claims 6 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent claims. Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-22 are pending. All pending claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-22 are rejected as further described below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner notes that the claims frequently utilize intended-use language such as "for" in addition to describing an action. Examples include the systems “for” noted in claims 17 and 20. If applicant wishes to positively claim the action associated with the component of interest, explicit recitation of "configured to", or the like, is recommended.
Claim language describing an action that "satisfy one or more policies associated with safely navigating the machine" (such as that found in claim 1) is being broadly interpreted to include any navigation criteria that does not reasonably result in immediate danger, collision, etc. as "associated with" is broad and "policy"/"policies" is being interpreted as plain meaning. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting this broadly to include any check/verification/determination.
Reference to a "plan associated [with] navigating" (such as in claim 2) is being interpreted under BRI to include paths, movement commands, collision avoidance, destination criteria, signal outputs, etc. that are used to control any movement command of the ego vehicle. A “plan” is not necessarily limiting in terms of an end-product or corresponding structure.
Regarding reference to viability (such as in claim 5), the examiner notes that paragraphs [0026, 0054], for example, describe specific examples regarding determination of "viability" but does not explicitly limit this descriptor. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting this term under BRI.
Claims 17 and 20 recite an intended use (the limitations that recite “for”) and do not describe the “system” in what it is or what it does, but rather what it may be used for. Thus, any “system” that may be used above reasonably reads on this claim as the system may generally be used for a certain purpose. For prior art purposes, the intent is taken into consideration.
Claim 18 has been amended to recite "One or more processors comprising processing circuitry configured to". When considering the applicability of analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), per MPEP 2181.I.A., "the court found the recitation of "aesthetic correction circuitry" sufficient to avoid pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, treatment because the term circuit, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connoted sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art."
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Control system” – claims 10, 12, 16-17, 20
“Perception system” and the other noted “systems” of claims 17 and 20
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the “control system”, the examiner notes that the specification describes an autonomous vehicle control system and a remote control system. Either way the “control system” is interpreted (from the vehicle or the remote component), the control systems have structure (at least) from the specification paragraph [0079-0081, 0088] and Figure [1, 6].
Regarding the systems of claims 17 and 20, per the above-noted claim interpretation, these are merely understood to be intended use and do not positively claim a certain structure. Thus, any “system” reads upon the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites "…associated with safely navigating the machine within the environment is based at least on the sensor data." It appears as though an instance of "machine" was inadvertently overlooked, which includes a lack of antecedent basis at this time. Correction of "machine" to "vehicle" is recommended.
Claim 22 states "…wherein the processing circuitry is further to:" and is missing "configured" (or equivalent) after "further".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US 2022/0348222 A1; hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding independent claim 1 (method): Zhao discloses A method comprising: (Paragraph [0030-0031, 0038] and Figure [3-4], Zhao discloses a method)
receiving, using a remote system and from a vehicle, first data representative of an environment for which the vehicle is navigating; (Paragraph [0011, 0040-0041, 0045, 0048, 0077, 0081, 0149, 0151] and Figure [1], Zhao discloses a remote system that receives environmental data (150) and/or sensor data (148) from an autonomous vehicle (AV), the data describing the environment of the AV. Important claim interpretation note: The examiner is considering the “remote system” to be every other component shown, for example on Figure 1, other than the ego vehicle/autonomous vehicle of concern, including the network 110, operation server 120, application server 160, and the remote operator 162, for example (all of the aforementioned components comprise a “system” that is remotely located from the AV))
determining, using the remote system and based at least on input data representing one or more inputs to one or more input devices, an action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; (Paragraph [0050-0051] and Figure [4], Zhao discloses processing the data received at the remote server and issuing a command affecting navigation)
determining, using the remote system, one or more commands to cause the vehicle to perform the action within the environment; (Paragraph [0058, 0062-0063, 0079, 0081-0083], Zhao discloses that the remote system (in particular example, the operation server) determines a command to cause the AV to perform an action/maneuver)
analyzing, using the remote system and based at least on the first data, the one or more commands to determine that the one or more commands satisfy one or more policies associated with safely navigating the vehicle within the environment; (The examiner notes that “commands satisfy one or more policies associated with safely navigating…” does not particularly limit the claim language; any form of check, response to environmental condition, modification, etc. reads upon the claim language, as a simple determination of an alternative path to avoid an accident or obstruction is associated with the vehicle not having a collision with the aforementioned object. Thus, the examiner is interpreting this language broadly. Paragraph [0008, 0041, 0047, 0057-0060, 0076, 0079, 0087-0090, 0092, 0133-0137], In a first example, Zhao discloses the remote system (in particular example, the operation server) determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc., any of which may reasonably be a policy. Per paragraph [0008], “The operation server may confirm, revise, or override the proposed command, and communicate a confirmation or revision to the AV . Upon receiving the confirmation or revision, the AV may perform the original or a revised command.” In a second example, Zhao discloses that the vehicle communicates further sensor data with an additional updated command (that is “safe to travel and free of objects/obstacles” per paragraph [0047]) and awaits confirmation from the remote system to perform an updated command (thus, the updated command is analyzed by the remote system operation server). Paragraph [0090] states “Upon receiving the sensor data 148 and the updated command 130-1 , the operation server 120 ( and / or the remote operator 162 ) may analyze the received data , and confirm, revise, or override the updated command 130-1”; thus, an analysis of the command and revision of the command is disclosed. In a third example, Zhao discloses that the remote operator (part of the remote system, which “may be an individual”, Paragraph [0053]) may review the received data and confirm, modify, and/or override the suggested command determined by the server)
based at least on the one or more commands satisfying the one or more policies, sending, using the remote system and to the vehicle, second data representative of the one or more commands to cause the vehicle to perform the action; and (Paragraph [0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action)
causing, using the second data representative of the one or more commands, the vehicle to navigate within the environment to perform the action. (Paragraph [0084, 0189], Zhao discloses that the AV receives a command and navigates according to the command per the control system, the control system being configured to perform steering and propulsion control)
Regarding claim 2: Zhao discloses parent claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein the determining the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment comprises: determining, based at least on the input data, a plan associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; and (Paragraph [0041, 0057-0060, 0076, 0088, 0092], Zhao discloses determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc.)
determining, using one or more machine learning models and based at least on the plan and the first data, the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action. As the object detection module utilizes machine learning to identify objects for avoidance, then a machine learning model is “used” to determine an action associated with navigation)
Regarding claim 3: Zhao discloses parent claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein the determining the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment comprises: determining, based at least on the input data, a plan associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; (Paragraph [0041, 0057-0060, 0076, 0088, 0092], Zhao discloses determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc.)
determining, using one or more machine learning models and based at least on the plan and the first data, at least one of one or more paths that the vehicle may navigate within the environment to perform the plan or one or more controls that the vehicle may use to perform the plan; and determining the action based at least on the at least one of the one or more paths or the one or more controls. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action. The driving action may include a broad avoidance command or a specific steering and propulsion command. As the object detection module utilizes machine learning to identify objects for avoidance, then a machine learning model is “used” to determine an action associated with navigation)
Regarding claim 4: Zhao discloses parent claim 1. Zhao further discloses further comprising: determining, using the vehicle and based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors of the vehicle, that the one or more commands satisfy one or more second policies associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment, (Paragraph [0008, 0047, 0065, 0084-0088, 0090-0097], Zhao discloses that the control device of the vehicle may negotiate with the remote system to revise commands based on observed presence of obstacles by the AV to avoid the obstacles. The vehicle control device receives sensor data to determine a safe pathway to travel by observing lane markings, boundaries, signs, etc.. Finally, the AV may use sensor data to and update the received commands depending upon the result. Any of the aforementioned cases may be considered satisfying a second policy)
wherein the causing the vehicle to navigate within the environment to perform the action is based at least on the one or more commands satisfying the one or more second policies. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073, 0086], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action, including the basing on the second policy discussed above)
Regarding claim 5: Zhao discloses parent claim 4. Zhao further discloses wherein: the one or more policies are associated with determining whether the one or more commands are viable based at least on the environment; and (Paragraph [0041, 0057-0060, 0076, 0088, 0092], Zhao discloses determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc., any of which may reasonably be a policy that may be “viable”)
the one or more second policies are associated with determining whether the one or more commands may cause the vehicle to collide with one or more objects within the environment. (Paragraph [0008, 0047, 0065, 0084-0088, 0090-0097], Zhao discloses that the control device of the vehicle may negotiate with the remote system to revise commands based on observed presence of obstacles by the AV to avoid the obstacles. The vehicle control device receives sensor data to determine a safe pathway to travel by observing lane markings, boundaries, signs, etc.. Finally, the AV may use sensor data to and update the received commands depending upon the result. Any of the aforementioned cases may be considered satisfying a second policy. By specifically discussing that the instructions (or revised/updated instructions) include avoidance of objects, the second consideration is therefore determined to not cause collision with the object)
Regarding claim 7: Zhao discloses parent claim 1. Zhao further discloses further comprising: determining that one or more faults associated with at least one of the vehicle, the remote system, or a network connection between the vehicle and the remote system have occurred; (Paragraph [0107], Zhao discloses determining health information of the components including a performance metric and error rate (thus, collecting a determination of faults))
based at least on the one or more faults occurring, determining, using the vehicle based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors of the vehicle, a second action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; and (Paragraph [0107, 0123-0125], Zhao discloses that the computing units of the AV are redundant backups, where each may receive the commands to perform from the server. Thus, the action may be carried out by a redundant computing unit (second action))
causing the vehicle to perform the second action within the environment. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073, 0086], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action, including the basing on the second policy discussed above)
Regarding claim 8: Zhao discloses parent claim 1. Zhao further discloses further comprising: generating, using the remote system and based at least on the first data, a virtual environment representative of the environment surrounding the vehicle; and (Paragraph [0045, 0047, 0063, 0074], Zhao discloses receiving sensor data that describes an environment of the vehicle)
causing, using the remote system, an output associated with the virtual environment, wherein the determining the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment occurs at least partially during the output associated with the virtual environment. (Paragraph [0048, 0084-0089], Zhao discloses that sensor data is communicated continuously and that that commands may be revised as more data is received. Therefore, as the server (remote system) issues commands, more data is received (during the output) and an update/revision to the command may be made)
Regarding independent claim 10 (system): Zhao discloses A system comprising: (Paragraph [0038-0039], Zhao discloses a system)
a control system configured to: receive input data representative of one or more inputs to one or more inputs devices; (Paragraph [0041, 0070], First, Zhao discloses that the operation server receives input data from a variety of sources (weather data from an external source, environmental data from the AV, etc.). Second, Zhao discloses input through input devices through user interfaces for example)
determine, based at least on the one or more inputs, an action associated with navigating a vehicle within an environment; (Paragraph [0039-0041], Zhao discloses a remote control system configured to determine a navigation command for a vehicle in an environment, based on the aforementioned input data noted above)
determine one or more controls that cause the vehicle to perform the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; (Paragraph [0058, 0062-0063, 0079, 0081-0083], Zhao discloses that the remote system (in particular example, the operation server) determines a command to cause the AV to perform an action/maneuver)
determine that the one or more controls satisfy one or more first policies associated with safely navigating the vehicle within the environment; and (The examiner notes that “controls satisfy one or more first policies associated with safely navigating…” does not particularly limit the claim language; any form of check, response to environmental condition, modification, etc. reads upon the claim language, as a simple determination of an alternative path to avoid an accident or obstruction is associated with the vehicle not having a collision with the aforementioned object. Thus, the examiner is interpreting this language broadly. Paragraph [0008, 0041, 0047, 0057-0060, 0076, 0079, 0087-0090, 0092, 0133-0137], In a first example, Zhao discloses the remote system (in particular example, the operation server) determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc., any of which may reasonably be a policy. Per paragraph [0008], “The operation server may confirm, revise, or override the proposed command, and communicate a confirmation or revision to the AV . Upon receiving the confirmation or revision, the AV may perform the original or a revised command.” In a second example, Zhao discloses that the vehicle communicates further sensor data with an additional updated command (that is “safe to travel and free of objects/obstacles” per paragraph [0047]) and awaits confirmation from the remote system to perform an updated command (thus, the updated command is analyzed by the remote system operation server). Paragraph [0090] states “Upon receiving the sensor data 148 and the updated command 130-1 , the operation server 120 ( and / or the remote operator 162 ) may analyze the received data , and confirm, revise, or override the updated command 130-1”; thus, an analysis of the command and revision of the command is disclosed. In a third example, Zhao discloses that the remote operator (part of the remote system, which “may be an individual”, Paragraph [0053]) may review the received data and confirm, modify, and/or override the suggested command determined by the server)
based at least on the one or more controls satisfying the one or more first policies, send, to the vehicle, data representing the one or more controls; and (Paragraph [0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action)
the vehicle to: determine that the one or more controls satisfy one or more second policies associated with safely navigating the vehicle within the environment; and (Paragraph [0008, 0047, 0065, 0084-0088, 0090-0097], Zhao discloses that the control device of the vehicle may negotiate with the remote system to revise commands based on observed presence of obstacles by the AV to avoid the obstacles. The vehicle control device receives sensor data to determine a safe pathway to travel by observing lane markings, boundaries, signs, etc.. Finally, the AV may use sensor data to and update the received commands depending upon the result. Any of the aforementioned cases may be considered satisfying a second policy)
based at least on the one or more controls satisfying the one or more second policies, cause the vehicle to execute the one or more controls in order to perform the action and navigate within the environment. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073, 0086], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action, including the basing on the second policy discussed above)
Regarding claim 11: Zhao discloses parent claim 10. Zhao further discloses wherein: the one or more first policies are associated with determining whether the one or more controls are viable based at least on the environment; and (Paragraph [0041, 0057-0060, 0076, 0088, 0092], Zhao discloses determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc., any of which may reasonably be a policy that may be “viable”)
the one or more second policies are associated with determining whether the one or more controls may cause the vehicle to collide with one or more objects within the environment. (Paragraph [0008, 0047, 0065, 0084-0088, 0090-0097], Zhao discloses that the control device of the vehicle may negotiate with the remote system to revise commands based on observed presence of obstacles by the AV to avoid the obstacles. The vehicle control device receives sensor data to determine a safe pathway to travel by observing lane markings, boundaries, signs, etc.. Finally, the AV may use sensor data to and update the received commands depending upon the result. Any of the aforementioned cases may be considered satisfying a second policy. By specifically discussing that the instructions (or revised/updated instructions) include avoidance of objects, the second consideration is therefore determined to not cause collision with the object)
Regarding claim 12: Zhao discloses parent claim 10. Zhao further discloses wherein the control system is further configured to: receive, from the vehicle, second data representative of the environment; (Paragraph [0048, 0084-0089], Zhao discloses that sensor data is communicated continuously (thus, the follow data is “second data”))
cause, based at least on the second data, an output of a virtual environment that is representative of the environment; and (Paragraph [0048, 0084-0089], Zhao discloses that sensor data is communicated continuously and that, as noted above, sensor data represents an environment of the vehicle. Thus, the transmission of sensor data is an output of a virtual representative of the environment)
receive, at least partially during the output of the virtual environment, the input data representative of one or more inputs. (Paragraph [0048, 0084-0089], Zhao discloses that sensor data is communicated continuously and that as a command is issued, more data may be made available to revise/update the command)
Regarding claim 13: Zhao discloses parent claim 12. Zhao further discloses wherein the determination of the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment comprises: determining, based at least on the input data, a plan for navigating the vehicle within the environment; and (Paragraph [0041, 0057-0060, 0076, 0088, 0092], Zhao discloses determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc.)
determining, using one or more machine learning models and based at least on the plan and the second data, the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action. As the object detection module utilizes machine learning to identify objects for avoidance, then a machine learning model is “used” to determine an action associated with navigation. Finally, as the data is continuously received and revised/updated, the second set of data is disclosed to influence the determined action)
Regarding claim 14: Zhao discloses parent claim 10. Zhao further discloses wherein the one or more controls include at least one of one or more acceleration controls, one or more velocity controls, one or more steering controls, or one or more braking controls. (The examiner notes that through recitation of “one or more” that only one is necessary to read upon the claim language. Paragraph [0084, 0189, 0202-0203, 0206], Zhao discloses that the AV receives a command and navigates according to the command per the control system, the control system being configured to perform steering and propulsion control)
Regarding claim 15: Zhao discloses parent claim 10. Zhao further discloses wherein the vehicle is further configured to: obtain sensor data using one or more sensors, the sensor data representative of the environment, (Paragraph [0045, 0047, 0063, 0074], Zhao discloses receiving sensor data from sensors that describes an environment of the vehicle)
wherein the determination that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more second policies associated with safely navigating the machine within the environment is based at least on the sensor data. (Paragraph [0008, 0047, 0065, 0084-0088, 0090-0097], Zhao discloses that the control device of the vehicle may negotiate with the remote system to revise commands based on observed presence of obstacles by the AV to avoid the obstacles. The vehicle control device receives sensor data to determine a safe pathway to travel by observing lane markings, boundaries, signs, etc.. Finally, the AV may use sensor data to and update the received commands depending upon the result. Any of the aforementioned cases may be considered satisfying a second policy. Thus, the determination is based on sensor data)
Regarding claim 16: Zhao discloses parent claim 10. Zhao further discloses wherein the vehicle is further configured to: determine that one or more faults associated with at least one of the vehicle, the control system, or a network connection between the vehicle and the control system have occurred; (Paragraph [0107], Zhao discloses determining health information of the components including a performance metric and error rate (thus, collecting a determination of faults))
based at least on the one or more faults occurring, determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors of the vehicle, a second action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; and (Paragraph [0107, 0123-0125], Zhao discloses that the computing units of the AV are redundant backups, where each may receive the commands to perform from the server. Thus, the action may be carried out by a redundant computing unit (second action))
causing the vehicle to perform the second action within the environment. (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073, 0086], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action, including the basing on the second policy discussed above)
Regarding claim 17: Zhao discloses parent claim 10. Zhao further discloses wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing teleoperation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (The examiner notes that through recitation of “at least one of”, that only one is necessary. Further, while the examiner insists that through recitation of “for”, that the limitations merely describe an intended use (see claim interpretation), examples of meeting the claim limitation as recited will be presented regardless. Paragraph [0038-0039, 0053, 0061-0062, 0196] and Figure [1, 2], Zhao discloses a system for autonomous operation of a vehicle (a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, and/or a system implemented using a robot), a system comprising a remote operator for teleoperation (a system for performing teleoperation operations), a system employing a deep machine learning technique (a system for performing deep learning operations), and a system that comprises a remote operation server comprising a computing system (both a system implemented at least partially in a data center and a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources))
Regarding independent claim 18 (apparatus): Zhao discloses One or more processors comprising circuitry configured to: (Paragraph [0041, 0043-0044, 0061, 0068] and Figure [1, 2], Zhao discloses a processing devices)
receive first data representative of an environment for which the vehicle is navigating; (Paragraph [0011, 0040-0041, 0045, 0048, 0077, 0081, 0149, 0151] and Figure [1], Zhao discloses a remote system that receives environmental data (150) and/or sensor data (148) from an autonomous vehicle (AV), the data describing the environment of the AV. Important claim interpretation note: The examiner is considering the “remote system” to be every other component shown, for example on Figure 1, other than the ego vehicle/autonomous vehicle of concern, including the network 110, operation server 120, application server 160, and the remote operator 162, for example (all of the aforementioned components comprise a “system” that is remotely located from the AV))
determine, based at least on input data representing one or more inputs to one or more input devices, an action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; (Paragraph [0050-0051] and Figure [4], Zhao discloses processing the data received at the remote server and issuing a command affecting navigation)
determine one or more controls to cause the vehicle to perform the action within the environment; (Paragraph [0058, 0062-0063, 0079, 0081-0083], Zhao discloses that the remote system (in particular example, the operation server) determines a command to cause the AV to perform an action/maneuver)
determine, based at least on the first data, that the one or more controls satisfy one or more policies associated with safely navigating the vehicle; and (The examiner notes that “controls satisfy one or more policies associated with safely navigating…” does not particularly limit the claim language; any form of check, response to environmental condition, modification, etc. reads upon the claim language, as a simple determination of an alternative path to avoid an accident or obstruction is associated with the vehicle not having a collision with the aforementioned object. Thus, the examiner is interpreting this language broadly. Paragraph [0008, 0041, 0047, 0057-0060, 0076, 0079, 0087-0090, 0092, 0133-0137], In a first example, Zhao discloses the remote system (in particular example, the operation server) determining a routing plan that “provides the safest driving experience” as the command to reach a destination. Examples are to avoid road closure, avoiding an obstacle by navigating to a different lane, following road rules such as speed limit, traffic congestion, etc., any of which may reasonably be a policy. Per paragraph [0008], “The operation server may confirm, revise, or override the proposed command, and communicate a confirmation or revision to the AV . Upon receiving the confirmation or revision, the AV may perform the original or a revised command.” In a second example, Zhao discloses that the vehicle communicates further sensor data with an additional updated command (that is “safe to travel and free of objects/obstacles” per paragraph [0047]) and awaits confirmation from the remote system to perform an updated command (thus, the updated command is analyzed by the remote system operation server). Paragraph [0090] states “Upon receiving the sensor data 148 and the updated command 130-1 , the operation server 120 ( and / or the remote operator 162 ) may analyze the received data , and confirm, revise, or override the updated command 130-1”; thus, an analysis of the command and revision of the command is disclosed. In a third example, Zhao discloses that the remote operator (part of the remote system, which “may be an individual”, Paragraph [0053]) may review the received data and confirm, modify, and/or override the suggested command determined by the server)
based at least on the one or more controls satisfying the one or more policies, send, to the vehicle, third data representative of the one or more controls to cause the vehicle to perform the action. (Paragraph [0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060], Zhao discloses issuance of a command from the operation server/remote system to the AV to perform the driving action)
Regarding claim 19: Zhao discloses parent claim 18. Zhao further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: cause, based at least on the first data, an output of a virtual environment associated with the environment; and (Paragraph [0045-0048, 0063, 0074, 0084-0089], Zhao discloses that sensor data is communicated continuously (thus, the follow data is “second data”). Further, Zhao discloses receiving sensor data that describes an environment of the vehicle)
receive, while the virtual environment is being output, the input data representative of the one or more inputs. (Paragraph [0048, 0084-0089], Zhao discloses that sensor data is communicated continuously and that as a command is issued, more data may be made available to revise/update the command)
Regarding claim 20: Zhao discloses parent claim 18. Zhao further discloses wherein the one or more processors is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing teleoperation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (The examiner notes that through recitation of “at least one of”, that only one is necessary. Further, while the examiner insists that through recitation of “for”, that the limitations merely describe an intended use (see claim interpretation), examples of meeting the claim limitation as recited will be presented regardless. Paragraph [0038-0039, 0053, 0061-0062, 0196] and Figure [1, 2], Zhao discloses a system for autonomous operation of a vehicle (a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, and/or a system implemented using a robot), a system comprising a remote operator for teleoperation (a system for performing teleoperation operations), a system employing a deep machine learning technique (a system for performing deep learning operations), and a system that comprises a remote operation server comprising a computing system (both a system implemented at least partially in a data center and a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources))
Regarding claim 21: Zhao discloses parent claim 18. Zhao further discloses wherein the vehicle determines that the one or more controls satisfy one or more second policies associated with navigating the vehicle, the one or more second policies being different than the one or more first controls. (Paragraph [0008, 0047, 0065, 0084-0088, 0090-0097], Zhao discloses that the control device of the vehicle may negotiate with the remote system to revise commands based on observed presence of obstacles by the AV to avoid the obstacles. The vehicle control device receives sensor data to determine a safe pathway to travel by observing lane markings, boundaries, signs, etc.. Finally, the AV may use sensor data to and update the received commands depending upon the result. Any of the aforementioned cases may be considered satisfying a second policy)
Regarding claim 22: Zhao discloses parent claim 18. Zhao further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to: determine one or more second controls to cause the vehicle to perform the action within the environment; and (Paragraph [0087-0097], Zhao discloses that the remote server may issue a command, such as to pull over to the side of the road)
determine, based on the first data, that the one or more second controls do not satisfy the one or more policies associated with safely navigating the vehicle, wherein the one or more controls are determined based at least on the one or more second controls not satisfying the one or more policies. (Paragraph [0087-0097], Zhao discloses that, in some cases, the vehicle may determine that the particular location is occupied by an obstacle, preventing the vehicle from performing the action without collision (a safety criteria). In this case, the control device of the vehicle may send sensor data indicating presence of the obstacle and request an updated command. Thus, the “first” command does not satisfy a policy associated with safe navigation, creating a second command that is determined based on this)
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights