DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-20 are pending. Claims dated 01/21/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/21/2026 with respect to claims have been 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 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 12-14 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites conflicting language with claim 1 in that claim 1 now defines the virtual path suggestion constraint as corresponding to “a minimum turning radius of the autonomous vehicle” whereas claim 12 defines the virtual path suggestion constraint as “a trailer sweep of the autonomous vehicle”. In light of Applicant’s specification, the following paragraphs appear to suggest that these are 2 different constraints (and therefore a single constraint cannot be both a minimum turning radius and a trailer sweep at the same time):
[0009] In addition, in some implementations, the virtual path suggestion constraint is a minimum turning radius of the autonomous vehicle.
[0010] In some implementations, the virtual path suggestion constraint is a trailer sweep of the autonomous vehicle.
[0032] FIG. 17 illustrates an example implementation of the two dimensional map of FIG. 16 after a virtual path suggestion constraint associated with minimum turning radius is determined to be violated.
[0035] FIG. 20 illustrates an example implementation of the two dimensional map of FIG. 18 after a virtual path suggestion constraint associated with trailer sweep is determined to be violated.
Because claim 12 contradicts the scope of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable clarity. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the limitations of claim 12 and its dependent claims to be met by the virtual path suggestion constraint as corresponding to “a minimum turning radius of the autonomous vehicle”.
Claims 13-14 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the roadway shoulder being “excessively steep”. The term “excessively steep” is a term of degree for which the specification fails to provide a reasonable standard for determining what constitutes “excessively steep”. At best, the specification [0152] & [0156] recites the claim language, but it is not clear how to evaluate what slopes are “excessively steep” and what slopes are not “excessively steep”.
For example, the specification and claim does not specify:
A numerical threshold (e.g. slope angle)
A reference condition or comparison baseline
Any test or standard by which a slope may be determined to be “excessively steep”
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of what is “excessively steep”, and accordingly, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets a slope is “excessively steep” based on a reference condition or comparison baseline (i.e., threshold).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the roadway shoulder being “excessively steep”. As reasoned above for the rejection of claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of what is “excessively steep”, and accordingly, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets a slope is “excessively steep” based on a reference condition or comparison baseline (i.e., threshold).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 15-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “wherein the virtual path suggestion constraint corresponds to a minimum turning radius of the autonomous vehicle […] presenting the virtual path suggestion constraint as a visual guide prior to receiving the virtual path suggestion input in response to receiving the virtual path suggestion input after presenting the virtual path suggestion constraint, determining a violation of the virtual path suggestion constraint by the virtual path of travel defined by the virtual path suggestion input and presenting a notification of the violation of the virtual path suggestion constraint proximate the visual guide to notify the teleoperations system operator of the violation of the virtual path suggestion constraint”.
The closest prior art Gate (US-11560154-B1), does not disclose a minimum turning radius. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a virtual path suggestion constraint may be a proximity and/or clearance between obstacles and lane boundaries. Prior art, Sridharan (US-20240123975) teaches presenting the virtual path suggestion constraint as a visual guide prior to receiving the virtual path suggestion input as Sridharan considers the proximity and/or clearance between obstacles and lane boundaries and displays them prior to receiving a user input to modify a vehicle trajectory (see FIGs. 6A-C which displays proximity/clearance to lane boundaries on a user interface for generating a trajectory).
Lines 11-13 of claim 1 further specify that the presented virtual path suggestion constraint is a “minimum turning radius of the autonomous vehicle” (as shown in at least Applicant’s drawings FIG. 16 circles 634). Sridharan does not teach this limitation. Further, while Sridharan teaches in [0081] a rendering of a blue color of a proposed trajectory that has too tight of a turn radius, this rendering occurs after the receiving the proposed trajectory from the user (virtual path suggestion input). In contrast, the claim requires presenting the virtual path suggestion constraint as a visual guide prior to receiving the virtual path suggestion input.
While prior art Abe (JP-2022102956-A) teaches display of a turning radius (but not specifically the minimum turning radius), Abe also displays the turning radius after receiving input from the operator ([0069] As shown in Figure 9, when an arbitrary via point P3 is set from the mobile terminal device 160 by an operator or the like, the mobile terminal device 160 sets a via turning circle C4 with a turning radius centered on the via point P3).
The amended limitations of specifying the virtual path suggestion constraint to be “a minimum turning radius of an autonomous vehicle”, being presented “prior to” receiving the virtual path suggestion, and determination of a violation of the minimum turning radius distinguish from the prior art.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 15-18 are allowable based on their dependence to allowable claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gate et al. (US-11560154-B1), in view of Yang et al. (KR-102570741-B1), in view of Ichinose et al. (US-20110010040-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Gate, Yang, and Ichinose respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Gate teaches system, the system comprising one or more processors in a teleoperations system remotely located from an autonomous vehicle and configured to (col 5 ln. 6-8 Some implementations may also include a system that is remotely located from an autonomous vehicle and includes one or more processors that are configured to perform various of the methods described above):
receive context data collected by the autonomous vehicle from an environment in which the autonomous vehicle operates (col 2 ln.9-11: receiving context data collected by the autonomous vehicle from the environment in which the autonomous vehicle operates);
present the received context data to a teleoperations system operator using a teleoperations user interface representing at least a portion of the environment to provide situational awareness to the teleoperations system operator (col 2 ln. 12-14: presenting the received context data to a teleoperations system to provide situational awareness to the teleoperations system, and in the teleoperations system);
[…] receive a virtual path suggestion input defining a virtual path of travel from the teleoperations system operator through the teleoperations user interface; and (col 29 ln 11-15: In some implementations, for example, a teleoperations system operator may provide a virtual path suggestion input to a teleoperations system that enables the teleoperations system or the autonomous vehicle to define a virtual path of travel for the autonomous vehicle)
in response to the virtual path suggestion input that defines the virtual path of travel, communicate path data to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to generate a path for the autonomous vehicle and to autonomously operate the autonomous vehicle to follow the virtual path of travel (col 2 ln. 14-18: …and in response to virtual path suggestion input defining a virtual path of travel, communicating path data to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to generate a path for the autonomous vehicle that follows the virtual path of travel).
Gate does not explicitly teach: present, within the teleoperations user interface, a virtual path suggestion constraint that constrains movement of the autonomous vehicle within the environment based upon a physical attribute of the autonomous vehicle.
However, Yang teaches present, within the teleoperations user interface, a virtual path suggestion constraint that constrains movement of the autonomous vehicle within the environment based upon a physical attribute of the autonomous vehicle (FIG. 10 presenting collision risk range 2 within the remote control monitoring interface; [0130] Thereafter, the computing device (100) can output the collision risk range (2) and expected driving path (1) of the autonomous vehicle (10) calculated according to the above method through a remote control monitoring interface, as illustrated in FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the presenting as taught in Gate to incorporate the teachings of Yang to include presenting, within the teleoperations user interface, a virtual path suggestion constraint that constrains movement of the autonomous vehicle within the environment based upon a physical attribute of the autonomous vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so “can further improve the stability of remote control by allowing the user (remote control authority) to confirm that the expected driving route he or she wants to set is a safe driving route before approving it” (Yang [0113]).
Gate, in view of Yang, does not explicitly teach: present, within the teleoperations user interface, an environmental constraint associated with ground slope for a roadway shoulder that constrains movement of the autonomous vehicle from a lane of the roadway to the roadway shoulder due to the roadway shoulder being excessively steep.
However, Ichinose teaches present, within a user interface, an environmental constraint associated with ground slope for a roadway shoulder that constrains movement of the autonomous vehicle from a lane of the roadway to the roadway shoulder due to the roadway shoulder being excessively steep (FIG. 3 ground slope for roadway shoulder 202 that constrains movement of vehicle 112 from lane 201; [0036] The alert device 105 can be a display device that uses characters and/or graphics to display the collapse risk level (e.g., a high-resolution monitor; FIG. 4 S301, S306, S307; [0068] The shoulder collapse risk monitoring system may however be constructed so that if the collapse risk calculated by the collapse risk calculating section 124 exceeds a threshold level (this level can be different from the foregoing threshold level), the vehicle course control device 106 will change the vehicle course to reduce the collapse risk below the threshold level. This allows automatic control of the vehicle course according to the particular collapse risk).
Note: The Examiner interprets in Ichinose, the collapse risk level exceeding a threshold level defines whether a roadway shoulder is “excessively steep” or not. The collapse risk level corresponds to the claimed “environmental constraint associated with ground slope for a roadway shoulder”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the information presented in the teleoperations user interface as taught in Gate, in view of Yang, to incorporate the teachings of Ichinose to include also presenting an environmental constraint associated with ground slope for a roadway shoulder that constrains movement of the autonomous vehicle from a lane of the roadway to the roadway shoulder due to the roadway shoulder being excessively steep, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “improving safety during the approach of the vehicle to the shoulder” (Ichinose [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230140569-A1: Foster describes checking a width and/or length of a road shoulder when determining whether to allow stopping at the shoulder for emergency
US-20230141588-A1: Nagel describes display of a grade of a berm/shoulder (FIG. 5 508).
See also prior arts cited in the previous Office Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662