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
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 of US Application No. 18/631,694 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-12, canceled claims 15-20, and added claims 21-26.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous objections to claims 5 and 18 are withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 5 and canceled claim 18.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103, see REMARKS, filed 27 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the previously-cited prior art, and particularly Liu, fails to teach “wherein the first supervisory request includes an indication that identifies the first situation”. However, Liu discloses that a request may comprise data associated with status of a related AV system. See ¶ [0007]. Liu further discloses that the request may include signals from hardware components of the vehicle or a related AV system. See ¶ [0041], [0084], [0114]. Further, the request may include relevant information about an AV system failure or other condition. See ¶ [0130]. Therefore, as indicated in the updated § 103 rejections below, the Examiner concludes that Liu teaches wherein the first supervisory request includes an indication that identifies the first situation.
Applicant also argues that the previously-cited prior art fails to teach “obtaining a first plurality of potential paths, wherein the first plurality of potential paths includes a preferred path identified by the first vehicle”. However, Liu discloses that a teleoperator may provide seeds of a possible trajectory. These seeds may be sent to a teleoperation command handling process on an AV system, where the AV system may then construct a trajectory from the current location to the new goal, i.e., seed. See Fig. 9 and ¶ [0158]-[0159]. In other words, Liu discloses obtaining one potential path, from the vehicle AV system, in response to receiving a point of intent, i.e., seed. Liu simply does not disclose providing a plurality of potential paths, including a preferred path, such that a potential path may be selected from the plurality of paths. However, Choi discloses that one or more candidate paths may be received from the vehicle, where a processor may distinguish, such as by color, between a main path having a high priority and other candidate paths. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the combination of Liu and Choi teaches obtaining, in response to providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system, a first plurality of potential paths (i.e., generating a potential path based on a seed provided to a vehicle autonomy system – Liu; receiving a plurality of candidate paths from the vehicle – Choi), wherein the first plurality of potential paths includes a preferred path identified by the first vehicle (i.e., distinguish a main path having a high priority from other candidate paths – Choi).
Finally, Applicant argues that the previously-cited prior art, and particularly Liu, fails to teach determining whether the first mitigation includes providing a point-of-intent to the autonomy system. However, as indicated above, Liu discloses that a teleoperator may provide seeds of a possible trajectory. These seeds may be sent to a teleoperation command handling process on an AV system, where the AV system may then construct a trajectory from the current location to the new goal, i.e., seed. See Fig. 9 and ¶ [0158]-[0159]. It is inherent that the AV system will determine whether a point-of-intent, i.e., seed, has been provided to the autonomy system. If the AV system has received a seed, then it will generate a trajectory, while if the AV system has not received a seed, then it will not generate a trajectory using a seed from the teleoperator. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 1-14 under § 103 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are method claims that recite contingent limitations. The claim limitations “when it is determined that the first mitigation includes providing the point-of- intent to the autonomy system, providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system and obtaining, in response to providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system, a first plurality of potential paths between a current location of the first vehicle and the point-of-intent, wherein the first plurality of potential paths includes a preferred path identified by the first vehicle” (claim 1), “when it is determined that the first mitigation does not include providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system, the method further includes: determining whether the first mitigation includes providing a blockage indication that identifies a blockage to the autonomy system; and when it is determined that the first mitigation includes providing the blockage indication that identifies the blockage to the autonomy system, providing the blockage indication that identifies the blockage to the autonomy system and obtaining, in response to providing the blockage indication that identifies the blockage to the autonomy system, a second plurality of potential paths that avoids the blockage” (claim 2), “when it is determined that the first mitigation does not include providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system, the method further includes: determining whether the first mitigation includes identifying a teleoperations direct control arrangement to remotely control the first vehicle; and when it is determined that the first mitigation includes identifying the teleoperations direct control arrangement to remotely control the first vehicle, communicating to the first vehicle and the teleoperations direct control arrangement that the teleoperations direct control arrangement is to take control of the first vehicle” (claim 4), and “when it is determined that the first mitigation does not include identifying the teleoperations direct control arrangement to remotely control the vehicle, the method further includes: communicating to the first vehicle that the first vehicle is to be extracted” (claim 5) are contingent limitations and are not required to be performed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed method does not require these limitation to be taught by the prior art. However, the claim limitations will be addressed in the § 103 rejections below in an effort to provide compact prosecution.
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 (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 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, 8, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0365908 A1, “Liu”) in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0413483 A1, “Choi”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 25, Liu discloses a method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities and teaches:
obtaining a first supervisory request at a teleoperations indirect control arrangement, the first supervisory request being originated by a first vehicle (at 302, a teleoperation event is generated by a monitoring process of an AV system and at 303 a teleoperation request is generated by the even handling process which requests the teleoperation system to begin a tele-interaction with the AV system – see at least Fig. 3A and ¶ [0084]), the first vehicle having an autonomy system, the autonomy system configured to enable the first vehicle to operate autonomously (at 301, AV system operates in fully autonomous mode – see at least Fig. 3A and ¶ [0084]);
identifying a first situation associated with the first supervisory request, wherein the first situation is identified by the first vehicle as affecting operation of the first vehicle (Determining that an intervention is appropriate may comprise analyzing the signal. Analyzing the signal may comprise detecting unexpected data or absence of expected data. Analyzing the signal may comprise evaluating a mismatch between a measured quantity and a model-estimated quantity for the hardware component or software. Analyzing the signal may comprise using pattern recognition to evaluate an abnormal pattern in the signal. The abnormal pattern may be learned by a machine learning algorithm. Analyzing the signal may comprise inferring a malfunction in the hardware component or the software. Analyzing the signal may comprise detecting an unknown object present in the environment of the vehicle. Analyzing the signal may comprise inferring an event that is or will be happening in the environment of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0006]; teleoperation event may be triggered. For instance, a brake malfunctions; a flat tire occurs; the field of view of a vision sensor is blocked; a frame rate of a vision sensor drops below a threshold; an AV system's movement does not match with a current steering angle, a throttle level, a brake level, or a combination of them; a fault software code; a reduced signal strength; an increased noise level; an unknown object perceived in the environment of the AV system; a motion planning process is unable to find a trajectory towards the goal due to a planning error; inaccessibility to a data source (e.g., a database, a sensor, and a map data source); or combinations of them – see at least ¶ [0090]), and wherein the first supervisory request includes an indication that identifies the first situation (request may comprise data associated with status of a related AV system – see at least ¶ [0007]; request may include signals from hardware components of the vehicle or a related AV system – see at least ¶ [0041], [0084], [0114]; request may include relevant information about an AV system failure or other condition – see at least [0130]);
identifying a first mitigation for the first situation (teleoperation command 452 – see at least ¶ [0087]);
determining whether the first mitigation includes providing a point-of-intent to the autonomy system (teleoperator may provide seeds 920 of a possible trajectory – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0158]);
when it is determined that the first mitigation includes providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system,
providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system (teleoperator may provide seeds 920 of a possible trajectory – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0158]) and
obtaining, in response to providing the point-of-intent to the autonomy system, a [potential path] between a current location of the first vehicle and the point-of-intent (new trajectory 952 may be determined based on seeds 920 – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0158]; seeds may be sent to teleoperation command handling process on the AV system – see at least ¶ [0158]; teleoperator may interact with motion planning process of the AV system, e.g., issue a new goal, and motion planning process of the AV system may then construct a trajectory from the current location to the new goal – see at least ¶ [0159]);
[ ]; and
providing, using the teleoperations indirect control arrangement, a first indication that the first vehicle is to use the first potential path (teleoperation command handling process 440 translates the teleoperation command in an AV system command 442 and sends the AV system command to the AV system – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0087]).
Liu fails to teach obtaining a first plurality of potential paths, wherein the first plurality of potential paths includes a preferred path identified by the first vehicle; selecting, using the teleoperations indirect control arrangement, a first potential path of the first plurality of potential paths.
However, Choi discloses an autonomous vehicle and control system for remotely controlling the vehicle and teaches:
obtaining a first plurality of potential paths (generate candidate paths – see at least ¶ [0114]), wherein the first plurality of potential paths includes a preferred path identified by the first vehicle (when receiving one or more candidate paths from the vehicle, the processor may distinguish between a main path having a high priority and other candidate paths – see at least ¶ [0025]);
selecting, using the teleoperations indirect control arrangement, a first potential path of the first plurality of potential paths (operator 230 may select an optimal path amount the candidate paths – see at least ¶ [0114]; display multiple candidate paths 712, 713, 714 – see at least Fig. 7B and ¶ [0116]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu to provide for obtaining a plurality of paths and selecting one of the paths, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the operator to select an optimal path (Choi at ¶ [0114]).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 21-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Choi, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Bohnsack et al. (US 2024/0319732 A1, “Bohnsack”).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Liu further teaches:
wherein the teleoperations indirect control arrangement is configured to monitor a plurality of vehicles including the first vehicle (teleoperation server 210 can communicate with multiple teleoperation clients, such as AV 200 and AV 250 – see at least Fig. 2A and ¶ [0079]).
Choi further teaches:
a [ ] plurality of potential paths that avoids the blockage (generate candidate paths – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0114]; situation in which it is impossible to follow a path during autonomous driving – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0107]-[0108]).
Liu and Choi fail to teach but Bohnsack discloses a method of supervised operation of a vehicle and teaches:
determining whether the first mitigation includes providing a blockage indication that identifies a blockage to the autonomy system, wherein the blockage is an area through which the first vehicle may not pass; and when it is determined that the first mitigation includes providing the blockage indication that identifies the blockage to the autonomy system, providing the blockage indication that identifies the blockage to the autonomy system and obtaining, in response to providing the blockage indication that identifies the blockage to the autonomy system, a [ ] paths that avoids the blockage (remote operator can send a nudge 46, which may be an identifier for an object, such as for an object that is lying across a road – see at least ¶ [0096]-[0099]; at S3, nudge 46 may be received from remote station 12 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0061]; at S4, updated trajectory may be determined based on the nudge – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Choi to provide for providing the blockage indication and obtaining a path, as taught by Bohnsack, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the vehicle to maintain supervisory control without the operator having to take over control of the vehicle (Bohnsack at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Liu and Choi teach:
selecting, using the teleoperations indirect control arrangement, a second potential path of the second plurality of potential paths (Liu: generate candidate paths – see at least ¶ [0114]; see claim 1 rejection); and providing, using the teleoperations indirect control arrangement, a second indication that the first vehicle is to use the second potential path (Choi: teleoperation command handling process 440 translates the teleoperation command in an AV system command 442 and sends the AV system command to the AV system – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0087]; see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Choi further teaches:
wherein the first situation is an obstacle in a first planned path for the first vehicle from a source point to a destination point (situation, e.g., road construction 30, in which it is not possible to continue driving on the driving path – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0107]) and providing the point-of-intent includes identifying the point-of-intent, wherein the point-of-intent is identified between the obstacle and the destination point (operator may adjust the path points – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu to provide for the situation being an obstacle in a path and providing a point-of-intent, as further taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow them to identify a path for avoiding the obstacle (Choi at ¶ [0134]).
Liu and Choi fail to teach but Bohnsack discloses a method of supervised operation of a vehicle and teaches:
determining a first classification for the first situation; and providing the first classification to the autonomy system (remote operator can send a nudge 46, which may be an identifier for an object, such as for an object that is lying across a road, along with a classifier to go with the identifier – see at least ¶ [0096]-[0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Choi to provide for determining and providing a classification, as taught by Bohnsack, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would indicate particular objects that should be avoided but could be driven over to assist the vehicle to maintain supervisory control without the operator having to take over control of the vehicle (Bohnsack at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 26, Liu further teaches:
wherein the first situation is an on-road situation (object blocking the road by the AV system cannot recognized what the object is – see at least ¶ [0163]).
Liu and Choi fail to teach but Bohnsack discloses a method of supervised operation of a vehicle and teaches:
wherein the indication that identifies the first situation is a classification associated with the on-road situation (remote operator can send a nudge 46, which may be an identifier for an object, such as for an object that is lying across a road, along with a classifier to go with the identifier – see at least ¶ [0096]-[0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Choi to provide for determining and providing a classification, as taught by Bohnsack, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would indicate particular objects that should be avoided but could be driven over to assist the vehicle to maintain supervisory control without the operator having to take over control of the vehicle (Bohnsack at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Liu further teaches:
wherein the on-road situation is one selected from a group including a blocked road and an impassable road (object blocking the road by the AV system cannot recognized what the object is – see at least ¶ [0163]).
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Choi, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of MacGregor et al. (US 2024/0142967 A1, “MacGregor”).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Liu and Choi fail to teach but MacGregor discloses techniques for engaging and disengaging a vehicle from an autonomous operation mode and teaches:
determining, at the teleoperations indirect control arrangement, whether the first mitigation includes identifying a teleoperations direct control arrangement to remotely control the first vehicle (teleoperator request to disengage from autonomy – see at least ¶ [0019]; manual driving mode where local or remotely provided commands are used to direct the vehicle in an environment – see at least ¶ [0012]); and when it is determined that the first mitigation includes identifying the teleoperations direct control arrangement to remotely control the first vehicle, communicating to the first vehicle and the teleoperations direct control arrangement that the teleoperations direct control arrangement is to take control of the first vehicle (teleoperator request may be sent to and validated by the teleoperation computing system – see at least ¶ [0021]; the request may be sent to the vehicle computing system if validated – see at least ¶ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Choi to provide for identifying a teleoperations direct control arrangement and communicating the direct control arrangement, as taught by MacGregor, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the vehicle to exit autonomous mode to resolve a vehicle fault, such as a road hazard (MacGregor at ¶ [0012]).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Liu further teaches:
wherein when it is determined that the first mitigation does not include identifying the teleoperations direct control arrangement to remotely control the vehicle, the method further includes: communicating to the first vehicle that the first vehicle is to be extracted (teleoperation command 452 is sent to teleoperation command handling process 440, which outputs AV system command 442 to AV system 410 – see at least Fig. 4A and ¶ [0087]).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Choi, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (US 2024/0036571 A1, “Goldman”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Liu and Choi fail to teach but Goldman discloses teleoperation queueing for autonomous vehicles and teaches:
wherein obtaining the first supervisory request at the teleoperations indirect control arrangement includes selecting the first supervisory request from a plurality of supervisory requests (at 404, remote operation system 112 may generate a queue of remote operation requests from a vehicle as well as other vehicles – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method for intervention in operation of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities of Liu and Choi to provide for selecting a supervisory request from a plurality of supervisory requests, as taught by Goldman, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow requests to be ordered based on time or safety considerations and for selecting an appropriate remote operator for responding to the request (Goldman at ¶ [0015]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights