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 action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/17/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 11-13 and 16-20; canceled claims 7 and 15; and added claims 21 and 22. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are pending and are examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 4/17/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/17/2026 obviate said claim rejections — namely, the claims now incorporate subject matter from previous claims 7 and 15 which recite a form of vehicle control that necessarily actuates structure. Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll et al. (US20200192352A1; “Rastoll”) in view of Zeng et al. (US20100198513A1; “Zeng”)
As to independent claim 1, Rastoll discloses a method for augmenting a sensor view of a vehicle, comprising:
receiving sensor information from the vehicle, wherein the sensor information is to be used to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task (“At step 1002, the vehicle computer system collects sensor data from a plurality of sensors (e.g., the sensors 114) onboard the vehicle.” ¶ 129 and FIG. 10; see also ¶ 20.);
based on the received sensor information, determining that the sensor information is insufficient to enable performance of the remote driving task (“[A] camera video stream alone may be insufficient for the remote driver.” ¶ 21. Note: Here, Rastoll’s system designed around the premise that certain sensor data is insufficient for remote driving necessarily encompasses a determination of insufficiency.);
obtaining supplemental sensor information (“[A] camera video stream alone may be insufficient for the remote driver to perceive whether a vehicle can safely maneuver around a concrete pylon; however, supplementing the camera data with other sensor data (e.g., through fusion of image data from one or more cameras with data from a radar sensor and data from a steering angle sensor) not only enables determining the distance between the vehicle and the concrete pylon with a high degree of precision, but also enables determining whether the concrete pylon is in the vehicle's predicted path of travel.” ¶ 21.)
determining that an aggregation of the sensor information from the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information enables execution of the remote driving task (“[A] camera video stream alone may be insufficient for the remote driver to perceive whether a vehicle can safely maneuver around a concrete pylon; however, supplementing the camera data with other sensor data (e.g., through fusion of image data from one or more cameras with data from a radar sensor and data from a steering angle sensor) not only enables determining the distance between the vehicle and the concrete pylon with a high degree of precision, but also enables determining whether the concrete pylon is in the vehicle's predicted path of travel.” ¶ 21.); and
applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information to take remote control of the vehicle form a remote operator station and execute the remote driving task (“Remote control system 700 enables a user (i.e., the remote operator) to remotely operate a vehicle through communication between remote control system 700 and a vehicle system (e.g., vehicle system 102).” ¶ 77 and FIG. 7. “At step 1008, the vehicle computer system receives one or more driving instructions from the remote computer system based on human input (i.e., input from the remote operator) supplied in response to the visual representation(s).” ¶ 133.).
Rastoll fails to explicitly disclose: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle (“Remote vehicle 30 includes both V2V communication and object detection sensing devices. Remote vehicle 30 detects remote vehicle 28 using its object detection sensors and transmits an estimated position of remote vehicle 30 as well as its own GPS position to host vehicle 10 via the V2V communication system. As a result, fusing the V2V communication data and objects detected by the host vehicle 10 may construct a 360 degree vehicle object map surrounding the host vehicle 10.” ¶ 22.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rastoll to include the feature of: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle, as taught by Zeng, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for accurately assessing a vehicle’s location and conditions with respect to surrounding vehicles. (See Zeng, ¶ 3.)
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim limitation of “determining that an aggregation of the sensor information from the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information [from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle] enables execution of the remote driving task” from the combination of Rastoll and Zeng with a reasonable expectation of success. Rastoll establishes the foundation of determining whether an aggregation of sensor information is either sufficient or insufficient for performing remote driving, and Zeng teaches that supplemental sensor data from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to a vehicle may be obtained and aggregated. A skilled artisan would have recognized that in combination, Rastoll’s determining would predictably apply to Zeng’s supplemental sensor data as such is a natural application of Rastoll’s existing framework to another form of aggregated sensor data. Critically, in combination Rastoll and Zeng perform the same function as they do separately (i.e., determining sufficiency/insufficiency of sensor data and obtaining supplemental sensor data, respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the prior art elements of Rastoll and Zeng to yield the claim limitation at issue according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143, I., A.).
Independent claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 3 and 19, Rastoll discloses: wherein applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information comprises generating a world view of an environment of the vehicle (“In certain embodiments, at least some of the sensor data may be combined (e.g., through sensor fusion) to generate a composite mapping or other visual representation of an environment external to the vehicle.” ¶ 65; see also ¶¶ 66-71. ).
As to claim 4, Rastoll discloses: wherein the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information is transmitted to a remote operator station to simulate an environment of the vehicle (“teleoperation system 104 may communicate data associated with a visual representation of a surrounding environment to remote computer system 106 via one or more of the wireless links 110A-B. The communicated data may comprise raw sensor data captured by sensors 114, processed sensor data, and/or data derived from the sensor data, and enables the visual representation to be output on one or more display devices of remote computer system 106.” ¶ 37. “[T]he visual representation is an artificial reconstruction of the surrounding environment.” ¶ 41.).
As to claims 8 and 21, Rastoll discloses: receiving a request from the vehicle for operation assistance (“[T]eleoperation system 104 communicates a request for remote valet service to remote computer system 106.” ¶ 86.).
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Mueck et al. (US20190130754A1; “Mueck”).
As to claims 2 and 18, the combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose:
determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task; and
requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles.
Nevertheless, Mueck teaches:
determining what sensor information is needed for performing a driving task (“If … the sensor data is deemed insufficient [for detecting a danger to a vehicle], then additional sensor data may be requested from surrounding vehicles.” ¶ 76.); and
requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles (“If … the sensor data is deemed insufficient [for detecting a danger to a vehicle], then additional sensor data may be requested from surrounding vehicles.” ¶ 76.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng to include the features of: determining what sensor information is needed to perform a driving task; and requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles, as taught by Mueck to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing supplied sensor data may assist a vehicle in avoiding collision. (See at least Mueck, ¶¶ 40–41.)
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Urano et al. (US20210109515A1; “Urano”) and in view of Mohammed et al. (US20240056554A1; “Mohammed”)
As to claims 5 and 20, the combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task.
Nevertheless, Urano teaches: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task (“The sensor type determination unit 35 may determine the type of the sensor 22a that can detect appropriate information when the remote commander R issues the remote instruction as the type of the sensor 22a, based on the external environment or the map information. Here, the appropriate information when the remote commander R issues the remote instruction may be information in which the remote commander R can easily recognize the situation around the remote autonomous driving vehicle 2.” ¶ 56.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng to include the feature of: determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task, as taught by Urano, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for supplying appropriate information to a remote operator to easily recognize a situation around a remote vehicle. (See Urano, ¶ 56.)
The combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Urano fails to explicitly disclose: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Urano to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Patel (US20190049948A1; “Patel”)
As to claim 6, the combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation.
Nevertheless, Patel teaches: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation (“The automated driving system can determine the vehicle processing results 126 that conflict with each other (e.g., recognizing a person in the middle of the travel lane, a preceding car crossing the center line in violation of the operating rules and contrary to a ‘STOP’ sign detected near the road, etc.). The automated driving system can use the conflicting results … as the trigger for the handover [for remote driving].” ¶ 31. “After the handover, the teleoperation process can be implemented where the autonomous vehicle 102 operates in response to the remote operator 108.” ¶ 32. Note: Summarizing, the remote operator ultimately performs a safety operation by safely operating a vehicle to avoid a conflicting result which could result in an unsafe outcome (e.g., collision).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng with the feature of: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation, as taught by Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for performing a common safety operation through remote driving.
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Lenser et al. (US20080027591A1; “Lenser”) and in view of Mohammed.
As to claim 9, the combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: wherein connecting with the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle comprises communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform to obtain the supplemental sensor information .
Nevertheless, Lenser teaches: communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform (“The operator control unit sends commands to the remote vehicles to perform autonomous behaviors in a cooperative effort, such that high-level mission commands entered by the operator cause the remote vehicles to perform more than one autonomous behavior sequentially or concurrently.” Abstract.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng to include the feature of: communicating cooperative maneuvers for the one or more surrounding vehicles to perform, as taught by Lenser, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for controlling multiple vehicles in a coordinated manner, thereby enhancing vehicle control.
The combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Lenser fails to explicitly disclose: the one or more surrounding vehicles obtaining supplemental sensor information.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Lenser to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to perform a simple substitution of Lenser’s autonomous behaviors with Mohammed’s directing of vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success because Mohammed’s teaching is a form of autonomous driving behavior.
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Lekutai (US20220277653A1) and in view of Mohammed.
As to claims 10 and 22, the combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle to obtain the sensor information.
Nevertheless, Lekutai teaches: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle (“A lead vehicle may be assigned to each respective group of vehicles, such that the lead vehicle may receive driving instructions from a remote system and relay those driving instructions to other vehicles in the group of vehicles.” ¶ 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng to include the feature of: wherein the one or more surrounding vehicles connected to the vehicle relay maneuver-related messages to the vehicle, as taught by Lekutai, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for controlling multiple vehicles in a coordinated manner, thereby enhancing vehicle control.
The combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Lekutai fails to explicitly disclose: the one or more surrounding vehicles obtaining supplemental sensor information.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Lekutai to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to perform a simple substitution of Lekutai’s relayed control commands with Mohammed’s directing of vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success because Mohammed’s teaching is a form of autonomous driving behavior.
Claim(s) 11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng and in view of Mohammed.
As to independent claim 11, Rastoll discloses a system for augmenting a sensor view of a vehicle, comprising:
one or more processors (“one or more processors” - ¶ 19.);
a memory coupled to the one or more processors to store instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors (“non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions executable by one or more processors of a computer system” - ¶ 19.), cause the one or more processors to:
receiving sensor information from the vehicle, wherein the sensor information is to be used to enable the vehicle to complete a remote driving task (“At step 1002, the vehicle computer system collects sensor data from a plurality of sensors (e.g., the sensors 114) onboard the vehicle.” ¶ 129 and FIG. 10; see also ¶ 20.);
based on the received sensor information, determining that the sensor information is insufficient to enable performance of the remote driving task (“[A] camera video stream alone may be insufficient for the remote driver.” ¶ 21. Note: Here, Rastoll’s system designed around the premise that certain sensor data is insufficient for remote driving necessarily encompasses a determination of insufficiency.);
obtaining supplemental sensor information (“[A] camera video stream alone may be insufficient for the remote driver to perceive whether a vehicle can safely maneuver around a concrete pylon; however, supplementing the camera data with other sensor data (e.g., through fusion of image data from one or more cameras with data from a radar sensor and data from a steering angle sensor) not only enables determining the distance between the vehicle and the concrete pylon with a high degree of precision, but also enables determining whether the concrete pylon is in the vehicle's predicted path of travel.” ¶ 21.)
determining that an aggregation of the sensor information from the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information enables execution of the remote driving task (“[A] camera video stream alone may be insufficient for the remote driver to perceive whether a vehicle can safely maneuver around a concrete pylon; however, supplementing the camera data with other sensor data (e.g., through fusion of image data from one or more cameras with data from a radar sensor and data from a steering angle sensor) not only enables determining the distance between the vehicle and the concrete pylon with a high degree of precision, but also enables determining whether the concrete pylon is in the vehicle's predicted path of travel.” ¶ 21.); and
applying the sensor information of the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information to take remote control of the vehicle form a remote operator station and execute the remote driving task (“Remote control system 700 enables a user (i.e., the remote operator) to remotely operate a vehicle through communication between remote control system 700 and a vehicle system (e.g., vehicle system 102).” ¶ 77 and FIG. 7. “At step 1008, the vehicle computer system receives one or more driving instructions from the remote computer system based on human input (i.e., input from the remote operator) supplied in response to the visual representation(s).” ¶ 133.).
Rastoll fails to explicitly disclose: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Zeng teaches: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle (“Remote vehicle 30 includes both V2V communication and object detection sensing devices. Remote vehicle 30 detects remote vehicle 28 using its object detection sensors and transmits an estimated position of remote vehicle 30 as well as its own GPS position to host vehicle 10 via the V2V communication system. As a result, fusing the V2V communication data and objects detected by the host vehicle 10 may construct a 360 degree vehicle object map surrounding the host vehicle 10.” ¶ 22.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rastoll to include the feature of: obtaining supplemental sensor information from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle, as taught by Zeng, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for accurately assessing a vehicle’s location and conditions with respect to surrounding vehicles. (See Zeng, ¶ 3.)
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim limitation of “determining that an aggregation of the sensor information from the vehicle and the supplemental sensor information [from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to the vehicle] enables execution of the remote driving task” from the combination of Rastoll and Zeng with a reasonable expectation of success. Rastoll establishes the foundation of determining whether an aggregation of sensor information is either sufficient or insufficient for performing remote driving, and Zeng teaches that supplemental sensor data from one or more surrounding vehicles communicatively connected to a vehicle may be obtained and aggregated. A skilled artisan would have recognized that in combination, Rastoll’s determining would predictably apply to Zeng’s supplemental sensor data as such is a natural application of Rastoll’s existing framework to another form of aggregated sensor data. Critically, in combination Rastoll and Zeng perform the same function as they do separately (i.e., determining sufficiency/insufficiency of sensor data and obtaining supplemental sensor data, respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the prior art elements of Rastoll and Zeng to yield the claim limitation at issue according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143, I., A.).
The combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated.
Nevertheless, Mohammed teaches: directing one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated (“If the sensors 40 are not able to monitor the entire area of interest 105, then the vehicle controller 34 commands the vehicle 10 to move autonomously to a location where the sensors 40 are able to monitor entire area of interest 105.” ¶ 44.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng to include the feature of: directing the one or more surrounding vehicles into a position where the supplemental sensor information can be generated, as taught by Mohammed, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for capturing an entire area of interest, thereby aiding in remote vehicle control.
Claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 3 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 8 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng and in view of Mohammed as applied to claim 11 – further in view of Mueck.
As to claim 12, the combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Mohammed fails to explicitly disclose:
determining what sensor information is needed to perform the remote driving task; and
requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles.
Nevertheless, Mueck teaches:
determining what sensor information is needed for performing a driving task (“If … the sensor data is deemed insufficient [for detecting a danger to a vehicle], then additional sensor data may be requested from surrounding vehicles.” ¶ 76.); and
requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles (“If … the sensor data is deemed insufficient [for detecting a danger to a vehicle], then additional sensor data may be requested from surrounding vehicles.” ¶ 76.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll, Zeng and Mohammed to include the features of: determining what sensor information is needed to perform a driving task; and requesting the needed sensor information from the one or more surrounding vehicles, as taught by Mueck to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing supplied sensor data may assist a vehicle in avoiding collision. (See at least Mueck, ¶¶ 40–41.)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Rastoll in view of Zeng and in view of Mohammed as applied to claim 11 – further in view of Patel.
As to claim 14, the combination of Rastoll and Zeng fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation.
Nevertheless, Patel teaches: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation (“The automated driving system can determine the vehicle processing results 126 that conflict with each other (e.g., recognizing a person in the middle of the travel lane, a preceding car crossing the center line in violation of the operating rules and contrary to a ‘STOP’ sign detected near the road, etc.). The automated driving system can use the conflicting results … as the trigger for the handover [for remote driving].” ¶ 31. “After the handover, the teleoperation process can be implemented where the autonomous vehicle 102 operates in response to the remote operator 108.” ¶ 32. Note: Summarizing, the remote operator ultimately performs a safety operation by safely operating a vehicle to avoid a conflicting result which could result in an unsafe outcome (e.g., collision).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rastoll and Zeng with the feature of: wherein the remote driving task comprises a safety operation, as taught by Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for performing a common safety operation through remote driving.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights