DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 12, 2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on March and June 16, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5, 13, and 17 are 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.
The term “unexpected road condition” in claims 5 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unexpected road condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the term “unexpected road condition” is mentioned in the specification as “highly unique driving condition that the machine learning model was not trained to handle” and “highly unique” is another relative term, thus the scope of the claim remains unclear. For examination purposes, “unexpected road condition” will be read as “hazardous road condition”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “pseudo-autonomous” in line 1, which is indefinite claim language. The limitation is unclear because the term has no recognized meaning and the associated limitations (e.g. driving) are unclear. For examination purposes, “pseudo-autonomous” will be read as “semi-autonomous”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 10203699 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a system, comprising:
a vehicle (In particular… one or more vehicle platforms 103a . . . 103n…; col 5, lines 7-12 and see Fig. 3; which shows three vehicles 103a-c); and
a processor onboard the vehicle and that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory onboard the vehicle (processor(s); col. 5, lines 64-67; col 6, line 1; Fig. 1), the computer-executable components comprising:
a search component that discovers one or more computing devices that are physically remote from the vehicle but that are within electronic communication range of the vehicle (local ADAS controller of the vehicle may receive the coverage area entry information, via the communication unit, and process it to understand that the vehicle is located within the RSU coverage area; col. 13, lines 4-28) and
a control component that establishes a first remote control link between the vehicle and a first computing device of the one or more computing devices (…the local ADAS controller may receive data from one or more sensors of the vehicle, receive data from the remote ADAS controller, switch between managing the local control of one or more ADAS(s) of the vehicle to facilitating the remote control of the one or more ADAS(s) by the remote ADAS controller, abort the remote ADAS control by remote ADAS controller 122…; col. 6, lines 65-67 and col. 7, lines 1-8), such that steering, accelerating, or braking of the vehicle are operated autonomously or by a physical driver prior to establishment of the first remote control link (The local ADAS controller 122 is computer logic executable to provide local ADAS control of vehicle; col 6, lines 65-66), and such that the steering, accelerating, or braking of the vehicle are remotely operated by the first computing device after establishment of the first remote control link (see at least col 19, lines 14-16; and col 20, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. Additionally, Kim teaches wherein the steering, accelerating, or braking of the vehicle are operated by the physical driver prior to establishment of the first remote control link (The local ADAS controller 122 is computer logic executable to provide local ADAS control of vehicle; col. 6, lines 65-66), and wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to selection of an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle by the physical driver (see at least col. 9, lines 66-67 and col. 10, lines 1-16).
Claim 9 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 1. Specifically, a processor onboard the vehicle and that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory onboard the vehicle (Kim col. 5, lines 64-67; col 6, line 1; Fig. 1).
Claim 17 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 1 and 9. Specifically, the onboard vehicle processor (mentioned above for claim 9) and the establishment of the first remote control link (mentioned above for claim 1 and 9).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10203699 B1) in view of Lee (US 20180095457 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. Additionally, Kim teaches wherein the steering, accelerating, or braking of the vehicle are operated by the physical driver prior to establishment of the first remote control link (The local ADAS controller 122 is computer logic executable to provide local ADAS control of vehicle; col. 6, lines 65-66), However, Kim does not teach wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to the vehicle deviating from a defined travel route.
Lee teaches wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to the vehicle deviating from a defined travel route (see at least [0248] and [0268])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the method of Kim in view of Lee in order to have remote control of the vehicle based on information acquired by the server via broadcast signals (see at least Summary - Lee).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. Additionally, Kim teaches wherein the steering, accelerating, or braking of the vehicle are operated by the physical driver prior to establishment of the first remote control link (The local ADAS controller 122 is computer logic executable to provide local ADAS control of vehicle; col. 6, lines 65-66), but Kim does not teach wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to detection of a health emergency of the physical driver.
Lee teaches wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to detection of a health emergency of the physical driver (see at least [0053] and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the method of Kim in view of Lee in order to enhance the safety of autonomous driving (see at least Lee [0037]).
Claim 10 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10203699 B1) in view of Zhao (US 20220348222 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. Additionally, Kim teaches wherein the steering, accelerating, or braking of the vehicle are operating autonomously prior to establishment of the first remote control link (The local ADAS controller 122 is computer logic executable to provide local ADAS control of vehicle; col 6, lines 65-66), but Kim does not teach wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to detection of an unexpected road condition encountered by the vehicle.
Zhao teaches wherein the control component establishes the first remote control link in response to detection of an unexpected road condition encountered by the vehicle (to communicate commands to one or more AVs heading toward unexpected road conditions; [0003] and see at least [0046] and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the method of Kim in view of Zhao in order to utilize the autonomous functions of the vehicle to adapt to unexpected road conditions not included in the map data, issuing commands to the vehicle to avoid unexpected road conditions and/or obstacles (see at least Abstract - Zhao).
Claim 13 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10203699 B1) in view of Ferguson (US 11176591 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. However, Kim does not teach wherein the control component monitors a signal strength of the first remote control link, and wherein the control component generates an electronic alert in response to the signal strength of the first remote control link falling below a threshold.
Ferguson teaches wherein the control component monitors a signal strength of the first remote control link, and wherein the control component generates an electronic alert in response to the signal strength of the first remote control link falling below a threshold (see at least col 18, lines 27-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the method of Kim in view of Ferguson in order to have notify the user of the signal strength with indicators or alerts to ensure the user is aware of what mode the vehicle in case the human operator needs to take control, such as if there is a weak signal (see Abstract and see col 18, lines 27-55; Ferguson).
Claim 14 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10203699 B1) in view of Malone (US 20220348183 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. However, Kim does not teach wherein the control component monitors a signal strength of the first remote control link, and wherein the control component causes the vehicle to enter a caution mode in response to the signal strength of the first remote control link falling below a threshold, wherein the caution mode includes reducing speed of the vehicle, increasing following distance of the vehicle, or diverting power in the vehicle to the first remote control link.
Malone teaches wherein the control component monitors a signal strength of the first remote control link, and wherein the control component causes the vehicle to enter a caution mode in response to the signal strength of the first remote control link falling below a threshold, wherein the caution mode includes reducing speed of the vehicle, increasing following distance of the vehicle, or diverting power in the vehicle to the first remote control link (stop procedure; see at least [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the method of Kim in view of Malone in order to safely bring the vehicle to a stop based on a weak communication signal for remote operation by controlling the steering and braking of the vehicle, ensuring safety for the operator and the surrounding environment (see Abstract and at least [0061]; Malone).
Claim 15 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10203699 B1) in view of He (US 11693401 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the system of claim 1. However, Kim does not teach wherein the control component monitors a signal strength of the first remote control link, wherein:
in response to the signal strength being below a first threshold, the control component prepares, as a redundant backup, a second remote control link between the vehicle and a second computing device of the one or more computing devices, without terminating the first remote control link; and
in response to the signal strength being below a second threshold that is less than the first threshold, the control component establishes the second remote control link and terminates the first remote control link.
He teaches wherein the control component monitors a signal strength of the first remote control link, wherein:
in response to the signal strength being below a first threshold, the control component prepares, as a redundant backup, a second remote control link between the vehicle and a second computing device of the one or more computing devices, without terminating the first remote control link; and
in response to the signal strength being below a second threshold that is less than the first threshold, the control component establishes the second remote control link and terminates the first remote control link (see at least col 12, lines 21-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to have modified the method of Kim in view of He in order to have backup options for remote control capabilities of the vehicle in case one remote control device fails or has weak/abnormal connection and be able to use the backup device to maintain/regain control of the vehicle (see at least He col. 8, lines 30-45 and Fig. 3-4)
Claim 16 is rejected essentially under the same reasoning as claim 8.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 11378952 B2 which relates to methods and systems for remote support of autonomous operation of vehicles.
NPL Document “Low cost implementation of a remote controlled Suzuki car to assist physically challenged people” which relates receiving data from a web server and modifies the signal inputs of the actuators to control the steering, accelerating, and braking through an onboard computer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK K LY whose telephone number is (571)272-5831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-16:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
KENDRICK KHOIKHOA. LY
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/KENDRICK K LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666