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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to application IT102023000017619 dated 25 Aug 2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 December 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Following receipt of Request for Continued Examination on 29 December 2025 with corresponding amended claim set, the examiner issued an election/restriction requirement dated 23 April 2026 pertaining to two distinct inventions; Invention I pertained to claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-17 and Invention II pertained to claims 18-22 of the previously-presented claim set. Applicant responded by electing Invention I without traverse on 17 June 2026, including cancellation of claims pertaining to Invention II and addition of new claims directed to Invention I. As this election was made without traverse, the previously made restriction requirement is hereby made FINAL.
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 17 June 2026, received in response to the election/restriction requirement dated 23 April 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-17, 23-27 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 23 are independent. Claims 6, 9, 18-22 are cancelled. No new matter was entered by way of amendment in the claim set dated 17 June 2026 and the examiner is considering the claim set including new claims 23-27.
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” intended uses noted in claim 17. 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 17 recites an intended use (the limitations that recite “for”) and does 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.
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.
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
“Perception system” and all instances of “a system for…” of claim 17
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 claim 17, 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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 states "…at least one of the second hardware includes same hardware as the first hardware or the second software includes same hardware as the first software." The underlined "hardware" is interpreted as a typographical error where "software" is intended, consistent with the terms of comparison.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 states "…whether the action is meaningful in a current driving scenario;…". The examiner consulted the specification and found that only paragraphs [0026, 0054] provide any further information regarding "meaningful", but only provide a single example - "e.g., whether the command will cause the vehicle 104 to navigate to a deadlock situation". The examiner has determined that the word "meaningful" renders the claim indefinite as "meaning" is assigned based on an infinite number of factors and individual point of view; mere presentation of a single example does not provide one having ordinary skill in the art with the requisite of knowledge to understand what may or may not be included in this limitation. As an infinite number of factors may have "meaning", and vary based on an infinite number of points of view, the term renders the claim indefinite.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, 17, 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houshmand et al. (US 2022/0194419 A1; published 23 June 2022, hereinafter Houshmand) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0096566 A1; published 01 April 2021, hereinafter Wang), incorporated in its entirety by Houshmand in paragraph [0069] of the specification.
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 10 (system), and 23 (apparatus): Houshmand discloses A method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses a method) / A system comprising: a control system configured to: (per claim 10) (Paragraph [0027, 0071] and Figure [2, 4], Houshmand discloses a system comprising a remote computing device (control system)) / One or more processors comprising processing circuitry to: (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0027, 0035] and Figure [2], Houshmand discloses one or more processors with memory to execute instructions)
receiving, using a remote system and from a vehicle, first data representative of an environment for which the vehicle is navigating; (per claim 1) / receive input data representative of one or more inputs to one or more inputs devices; (per claim 10) / receive input data representative of one or more inputs to one or more inputs devices; (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0054, 0065] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses receiving sensor data (representing an environment of the vehicle) at the vehicle and sending the data alongside a request to the remote server, the remote server receiving the aforementioned data)
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; (per claim 1) / determine, based at least on the one or more inputs, an action associated with navigating a vehicle within an environment; (per claim 10) / determine, based at least on the one or more inputs, an action associated with navigating a vehicle within an environment; (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0066, 0072-0073] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses that the server determines one or more candidate trajectories)
determining, using the remote system, one or more controls that the vehicle is to implement in order to perform the action within the environment; (per claim 1) / determine one or more controls that cause the vehicle to perform the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; (per claim 10) / determine one or more controls that cause the vehicle to perform the action associated with navigating the vehicle within the environment; (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0066, 0072-0073] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses that the server determines one or more candidate trajectories, the trajectories including detailed information such as current/target position, velocity, acceleration, heading, steering angle, steering rate, associated weights, etc., any of the aforementioned data (but not limited to those provided in the aforementioned list) reading upon the limitation)
in response to determining the one or more controls, determining, using the remote system and based at least on the first data, that the one or more controls satisfy one or more first policies that specify the one or more controls are capable of being performed within the environment as represented by the first data; (per claim 1) / in response to the determination of the one or more controls, determine that the one or more controls satisfy one or more first policies that specify the one or more controls are capable of being performed within the environment; and (per claim 10) / in response to the determination of the one or more controls, determine that the one or more controls satisfy one or more first policies that specify the one or more controls are capable of being performed within the environment; and (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0042, 0066, 0072-0073] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses that the server determines one or more candidate trajectories, the trajectories including detailed information such as current/target position, velocity, acceleration, heading, steering angle, steering rate, associated weights, etc., any of the aforementioned data (but not limited to those provided in the aforementioned list) reading upon the limitation. While any of the aforementioned terms read upon this check, as a particular example, a weight may be considered the satisfying criteria as it dictates how closely the trajectory must adhere (to result in a successful trajectory, or a “capability” of being performed))
based at least on the one or more controls satisfying the one or more first policies, sending, using the remote system and to the vehicle, second data representative of the one or more controls; (per claim 1) / 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 (per claim 10) / 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, (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0066, 0077] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses transmitting the one or more trajectories and associated data/controls to the vehicle)
determining, using the vehicle and based at least on the second data, that the one or more controls satisfy one or more second policies [associated with avoiding a collision with one or more objects located within the environment]; and (per claim 1) / determine, based at least on receiving the data representing the one or more controls, that the one or more controls satisfy one or more second policies [associated with avoiding a collision with one or more objects located within the environment]; and (per claim 10) / wherein the vehicle determines that the one or more controls satisfy one or more second policies [associated with avoiding a collision with one or more objects located within the environment], and (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0066-0068] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses that due to latency, the vehicle may gather additional data to disregard or modify the trajectory received from the remote server and verify if it is complete and/or feasible (a second policy performed by the vehicle))
causing, based at least on the one or more controls satisfying the one or more second policies, the vehicle to navigate within the environment using the one or more controls. (per claim 1) / based at least on the one or more controls satisfying the one or more second policies, execute the one or more controls in order to perform the action and navigate within the environment. (per claim 10) / executes the one or more controls in order to perform the action to navigate within the environment. (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0070] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses executing the selected trajectory by the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding a local check that the trajectory satisfies a second policy associated with avoiding collision, Houshmand does not explicitly state what the feasibility check includes in publication US 2022/0194419 A1 (the primary reference Houshmand), however, Paragraph [0069] of Houshmand discloses “The feasibility of the path may be checked by a validation component of the planner, as discussed in more detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/588,529, filed Sep. 30, 2019, which is incorporated herein for all purposes.” The examiner notes that the aforementioned US Patent Application is the disclosure of Wang.
Wang, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle path planning, teaches that the feasibility check (second policy) of Houshmand pertains to a system associated with avoiding a collision with one or more objects located within the environment (Paragraph [0015, 0027], Wang teaches that the validation component is associated with collision avoidance)
Houshmand and Wang are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle path planning. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Houshmand to clarify that the “feasibility check” performed by the vehicle pertains to (or is at least “associated with”) collision avoidance, as taught by Wang, as Houshmand directly cites that “The feasibility of the path may be checked by a validation component of the planner, as discussed in more detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/588,529, filed Sep. 30, 2019, which is incorporated herein for all purposes.” A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would then have been directed to Wang (motivation), finding the teachings of the validation component in paragraphs [0015, 0027] of Wang, associating the feasibility check with the validation component, that pertains to collision avoidance per Wang.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 26: Parent claims 1, 10, and 23 are unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand 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 (per claim 2) / 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 (per claim 13) / 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 (per claim 26) (Paragraph [0072-0076, 0106], Houshmand discloses determining one or more trajectories with corresponding data such as position, velocity, weight, etc., any of the aforementioned reasonably constituting a generic “plan”)
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. (per claim 2) / 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. (per claim 13) / 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. (per claim 26) (Paragraph [0017, 0075], Houshmand discloses that the trajectory may be the output of a machine learning component)
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand 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 [0072-0076, 0106], Houshmand discloses determining one or more trajectories with corresponding data such as target position, velocity, weight, etc., any of the aforementioned reasonably constituting a generic “plan”)
determining, using one or more machine learning models and based at least on the plan and the first data, one or more paths that the vehicle may navigate within the environment to perform the plan; and (Paragraph [0017, 0075], Houshmand discloses that the trajectory may be the output of a machine learning component)
determining the action based at least on the one or more paths. (Paragraph [0071-0072], Houshmand discloses that the trajectory is the product of a target location, including vehicle dynamic data to accomplish this)
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand further discloses wherein the one or more first policies are associated with at least one of: whether the action is meaningful in a current driving scenario; whether the action may succeed based at least on the current driving scenario; or whether the action causes the vehicle to violate a driving law. (Paragraph [0042, 0066, 0072-0073] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses that the server determines one or more candidate trajectories, the trajectories including detailed information such as current/target position, velocity, acceleration, heading, steering angle, steering rate, associated weights, etc., any of the aforementioned data (but not limited to those provided in the aforementioned list) reading upon the limitation. While any of the aforementioned terms read upon this check, as a particular example, a weight may be considered the satisfying criteria as it dictates how closely the trajectory must adhere (to result in a successful trajectory, or a “capability” of being performed), and is generically “meaningful in a current driving scenario” or “whether the action may succeed based at least on the current driving scenario”, though only one is necessary by way of recitation of “at least one of”)
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 24: Parent claims 1, 10, and 23 are unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand further discloses wherein: the remote system uses at least one of first hardware or first software to determine that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more first policies; and (per claim 5) / wherein: the control system uses one or more first hardware components to determine that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more first policies; and (per claim 11) / wherein: one or more first hardware components are used to determine that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more first policies; and (per claim 24) (The examiner notes that claim 5 differs from claims 11 and 24 in this limitation through allowing either hardware or software to read upon the claim. Paragraph [0035-0036, 0072-0073] and Figure [2-4], Houshmand discloses use of a combination of processor and memory storing instructions (hardware and software) to carry out the remote server tasks)
the vehicle uses at least one of second hardware or second software to determine that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more second policies; and (per claim 5) / the vehicle uses one or more second hardware components to determine that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more second policies, (per claim 11) / one or more second hardware components are used to determine that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more second policies, (per claim 24) (The examiner notes that claim 5 differs from claims 11 and 24 in this limitation through allowing either hardware or software to read upon the claim. Paragraph [0036-0037, 0068-0069] and Figure [2-4], Houshmand discloses that the vehicle control processor and memory (at least) perform the tasks of the feasibility check (at least))
at least one of the second hardware includes same hardware as the first hardware or the second software includes same hardware as the first software. (per claim 5) / the one or more second hardware components including one or more same hardware components as the one or more first hardware components. (per claim 11) / the one or more second hardware components including one or more same hardware components as the one or more first hardware components. (per claim 24) (The examiner notes that claim 5 differs from claims 11 and 24 in this limitation through allowing either hardware or software to read upon the claim. Paragraph [0035-0036, 0044], Houshmand discloses that both hardware components may be analogous/the same through recitation of “By way of example and not limitation, the processor(s) 218 and/or 222 may comprise one or more central processing units (CPUs)…” (as both use CPUs, they are the “same” in this regard))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand 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 [0038-0039], Houshmand discloses varying representations of the environment through received sensor data)
causing, using the remote system, an output associated with the virtual environment, (Paragraph [0072-0073], Houshmand discloses providing output (trajectories) based upon the received sensor data (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 [0038, 0066-0067] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses continuous performance of the method, including with receiving updated information)
Regarding claims 12 and 25: Parent claims 10 and 23 are unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand further discloses wherein the control system is further configured to: receive, from the vehicle, second data representative of the environment; (per claim 12) / wherein the processing circuitry is further to: receive, from the vehicle, second data representative of the environment; and (per claim 25) (Paragraph [0038-0039, 0066-0067], Houshmand discloses varying representations of the environment through received sensor data, including additional second sensor data)
cause, based at least on the second data, an output of a virtual environment that is representative of the environment, (per claim 12) / cause, based at least on the second data, an output of a virtual environment that is representative of the environment, (per claim 25) (Paragraph [0072-0073], Houshmand discloses providing output (trajectories) based upon the received sensor data (virtual environment))
wherein the input data representative of one or more inputs is received at least partially during the output of the virtual environment. (per claim 12) / wherein the input data representative of one or more inputs is received at least partially during the output of the virtual environment. (per claim 25) (Paragraph [0038, 0066-0067] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses continuous performance of the method, including with receiving updated information)
Regarding claims 14 and 27: Parent claims 10 and 26 are unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand 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. (per claim 14) / 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. (per claim 27) (Paragraph [0051, 0066], Houshmand discloses control such as for acceleration and steering (only one is necessary through recitation of “at least one of”))
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 10 is unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand 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 [0054], Houshmand discloses receiving sensor data indicative of the environment)
wherein the determination that the one or more controls satisfy the one or more second policies associated with safely navigating the vehicle within the environment is further based at least on the sensor data. (Paragraph [0068-0069] and Figure [3, 4], Houshmand discloses a process of receiving and processing sensor data, wherein the feasibility check is ultimately dependent upon the initially-received sensor data)
Regarding claim 17: Parent claim 10 is unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand 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 “at least one of” indicates that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0012, 0070], Houshmand discloses controlling an autonomous machine using remote computing resources)
Claims 7 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang in further view of Zhao et al. (US 2022/0348222 A1; published 03 November 2022, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claims 7 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 10 are unpatentable over Houshmand in view of Wang. Houshmand does not explicitly disclose accounting for faults.
However, Zhao, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle navigation and control, teaches 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; (per claim 7) / wherein the vehicle is further configured to: determine that one or more faults associated with a network connection between the vehicle and the control system have occurred; (per claim 16) (Paragraph [0022-0024, 0107, 0127-0130], Zhao discloses determining health information of the components including a performance metric and error rate (thus, collecting a determination of faults) and faults regarding losing connection with the server)
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 (per claim 7) / (per claim 16) (Paragraph [0107, 0123-0130], 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). Further, if connection is lost with the server, the AV may perform vehicle to vehicle communication instead)
causing the vehicle to perform the second action within the environment. (per claim 7) / (per claim 16) (Paragraph [0045, 0049-0050, 0052, 0057-0060, 0072-0073, 0086, 0127-0130], 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, including via V2V)
Houshmand and Zhao are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle navigation and control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Houshmand to include backups/redundancies when faults are experienced in order to maintain operational stability, reliability, and redundancy (Paragraph [0017, 0107, 0113], Zhao), as taught by Zhao.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2021/0116907 A1
DEVICE , SYSTEM , AND METHOD OF
AUTONOMOUS DRIVING AND
TELE - OPERATED VEHICLES
Altman
Filed: 17 Mar 2019
Pub: 22 Apr 2021
Discusses a cooperative vehicle teleoperation control system that collects data from the vehicle, sends it to a remote server, and the server determines commands to send to the vehicle.
2
US 2022/0351629 A1
OPTIMIZED AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
Pesquet – Popescu et al.
Filed: 29 Apr 2022
Pub: 03 Nov 2022
Discusses a system of UAV flight path generation wherein a remote server receives data from the UAV to generate a plurality of paths and validates them to ensure that they are flyable (capable of being performed).
3
US 2024/0329633 A1
DISPLAYING AN OVERLAY INCLUDING A
PROJECTED PATH OF A VEHICLE
Pedersen et al.
Filed: 31 Mar 2023
Pub: 03 Oct 2024
Discusses a teleoperated vehicle system that utilizes a remote server which collects data and generates a trajectory for a vehicle. Further, the vehicle is caused to follow he projected path or not based upon a local determination that the path is safe to follow (clear of obstacles).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights