DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
This action is in response to applicant’s RCE filed 1/13/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 and 21-23 are pending and considered below.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention was directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include the limitation “in response to the indication of consent, controlling, by the computing system, the vehicle to perform the maneuver”. Applicant argued that the express language of amended independent claim 1 requires control of the vehicle to perform a maneuver. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-10 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims were unclear as to why the vehicle is maneuvered based on the predetermined command after determining that the first command is not a predetermined command. Independent claim 1 has been amended to include “wherein the notification asks whether the maneuver is desired by the person; receiving, by the computing system, an indication of consent by the person in response to the notification, wherein the indication of consent is provided through an actuation pattern associated with at least two consecutive actions for the device, the actuation pattern being distinct from an actuation pattern associated with standard use of the device; and in response to the indication of consent, controlling, by the computing system, the vehicle to perform the maneuver”. Independent claims 11 and 16 have been amended in a similar manner. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-19 is withdrawn.
Claims 3, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form. Amended independent claims 1, 11 and 16 include the limitation receiving “an indication of consent by the person in response to the notification”. Dependent claims 3, 13 and 18 include the limitation “determining the absence of consent by the person to the maneuver”. These limitations are mutually exclusive.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (U.S. Patent Number 10,496,362). Claims 2, 4, 8-9, 12, 14, 17 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Delp (US-2017/0248957-A1).
Li discloses a system for a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle manually or via verbal commands (Abstract). When a user pushes a turn-right button, a road map indicating available turn-right locations is presented on a screen of the autonomous vehicle (col. 23, line 47 - col. 24, line 11). The user taps an icon to select a place to make the turn (col. 24, lines 12-38). Alternatively, a user may say a word or sentence to issue a verbal command. After a control system obtains the verbal command, it may display the command on the screen. The control system may also display a question and “Yes” and ”No” answer buttons. A user may say “Yes” or “No” or push a button to confirm or cancel the verbal command (col. 25, lines 12-26).
Delp discloses a computing device which controls a vehicle to execute an autonomous passing operation, an autonomous road exit operation, and an autonomous exit search operation responsive to manual actuation of an associated control mechanism (Abstract). An autonomous vehicle control system is configured to enable a user to select a number of turn signal lever clicks that will activate a particular operational mode (paragraphs [0081-0085]). A passing maneuver may be initiated by “double-clicking” a turn signal lever (paragraph [0043]).
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Delp for the reasons given below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“actuating device” (claims 8-10) is an arm, a lever, a knob and/or a button, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0020] and FIG. 1, autonomous vehicle-100, and input device-130; and
“non-actuating device” (claims 8-10) is a touch screen, a microphone and/or a camera, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0020] and FIG. 1, autonomous vehicle-100, and input device-130.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 16 include the limitation receiving “an indication of consent by the person in response to the notification”. Dependent claims 3, 13 and 18 include the limitation “determining the absence of consent by the person to the maneuver”. These limitations are mutually exclusive.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Patent Number 10,496,362, hereinafter Li) in view of Delp (US-2017/0248957-A1, hereinafter Delp).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses:
receiving, by a computing system (col. 4, lines 19-40; and FIG. 1-A, processor-10, computer readable medium-12, vehicle-18, control system-24, speed control module-64, steering module-66, braking module-68, and driving system-70);
a first command from a person in a vehicle (col. 23, line 47 - col. 24, line 11; and col. 25, lines 12-20);
determining, by the computing system, that the first command is not a predetermined command (col. 26, lines 38-59);
associated with automatic performance of a maneuver by the vehicle (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; and col. 25, line 12 - col. 26, line 59);
in response to the first command and a determination that the first command provided by the person is not the predetermined command associated with automatic performance of the maneuver (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; and col. 25, line 12 - col. 26, line 59);
generating, by the computing system, a notification, wherein the notification asks whether the maneuver is desired by the person (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26);
receiving, by the computing system, an indication of consent by the person in response to the notification (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26); and
in response to the indication of consent, controlling, by the computing system, the vehicle to perform the maneuver (col. 26, lines 60-66).
Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp discloses a system for autonomous vehicle maneuvering responsive to manual actuation of an associated control mechanism, including the following features:
wherein the indication of consent is provided through an actuation pattern associated with at least two consecutive actions for the device, the actuation pattern being distinct from an actuation pattern associated with standard use of the device (paragraphs [0043] and [0081-0085]; and FIG. 5, TURN SIGNAL LEVER OPERATIONS MENU-900).
Delp teaches that an autonomous vehicle control system should be configured to enable a user to select a number of turn signal lever clicks that will activate a particular operational mode (paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle using a user actuation pattern indicating a desired maneuver of Delp into the autonomous vehicle using a control panel or a voice recognition system indicating a desired maneuver of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an efficient manner for a user to confirm a desired autonomous maneuver.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp further discloses:
wherein the first command is associated with an actuation pattern for a device corresponding with standard operations relating to standard use of the device (paragraphs [0043] and [0081-0085]; and FIG. 5, TURN SIGNAL LEVER OPERATIONS MENU-900).
Delp teaches that an autonomous vehicle control system should be configured to enable a user to select a number of turn signal lever clicks that will activate a particular operational mode (paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle using a user actuation pattern indicating a desired maneuver of Delp into the autonomous vehicle using a control panel or a voice recognition system indicating a desired maneuver of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an efficient manner for a user to confirm a desired autonomous maneuver.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18, Li further discloses:
determining the absence of consent by the person to the maneuver (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19, Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp further discloses:
wherein the notification is provided to the person in response to a determination that an input signal associated with the first command is not associated with an actuation pattern indicative of consent to the maneuver (paragraph [0062]).
Delp teaches that an autonomous vehicle control system should permit a user to cancel a passing operation by clicking a lever back into a neutral position. The autonomous vehicle control system then provides an acknowledgement that the passing operation has been halted (paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle providing notification regarding a user actuation pattern of Delp into the autonomous vehicle providing notification regarding input to a control panel or a voice recognition system of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a user with notification of expected maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claims 6, 21 and 23, Li further discloses:
wherein the notification is at least one of audible, visual, and haptic (col. 25, lines 21-26; and col. 26, lines 56-59).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Li further discloses:
wherein, before i) receipt of an input signal associated with the first command that is associated with an actuation pattern indicative of consent to the maneuver and ii) a determination that the maneuver can be performed safely, provision of a signal to cause the vehicle to perform the maneuver is prevented (col. 10, line 57 - col. 11, line 32; and FIG. 7, user settles down-172, user pushes “start” button-174, safety check-176, and vehicle starts-178).
Regarding claim 8, Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp further discloses:
wherein the predetermined command is associated with two inputs received by at least one of an actuating device and a non-actuating device (paragraphs [0040] and [0043]; and FIG. 8, buttons-811, 817a-c, turn signal lever-812, fields-820a-c, and touch screen-822).
Delp teaches that a passing maneuver is initiated by “double-clicking” a turn signal lever (paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle using an input user actuation pattern which requires “double-clicking” a turn signal lever to indicate a desired passing maneuver of Delp into the autonomous vehicle using a control panel or a voice recognition system indicating a desired maneuver of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an efficient manner for a user to confirm a desired autonomous passing maneuver.
Regarding claim 9, Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp further discloses:
wherein the two inputs are received within a selected time duration (paragraph [0043], quick succession).
Delp teaches that a passing maneuver is initiated by “double-clicking” a turn signal lever (paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle using an input user actuation pattern which requires “double-clicking” a turn signal lever to indicate a desired passing maneuver of Delp into the autonomous vehicle using a control panel or a voice recognition system indicating a desired maneuver of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an efficient manner for a user to confirm a desired autonomous passing maneuver.
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses:
wherein at least one of the predetermined command and the first command is associated with an actuating device or a non-actuating device, the actuating device including at least one of an arm, a lever, a knob, and a button, the non-actuating device including at least one of a touch screen, a microphone, and an image sensor (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; col. 23, line 47 - col. 24, line 57; FIG. 24-A, control panel-94, and navigational buttons-74,76,78,80,82; FIG. 24-B, control panel-96, arrow labels-84,86,88,90,92, and knob-98; and FIG. 25, screen-512).
Regarding claim 11, Li further discloses:
at least one processor (col. 4, lines 19-40);
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: (col. 4, lines 19-40; and FIG. 1-A, processor-10, computer readable medium-12, vehicle-18, control system-24, speed control module-64, steering module-66, braking module-68, and driving system-70);
receiving a first command from a person in a vehicle (col. 23, line 47 - col. 24, line 11; and col. 25, lines 12-20);
determining that the first command is not a predetermined command (col. 26, lines 38-59);
associated with automatic performance of a maneuver by the vehicle (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; and col. 25, line 12 - col. 26, line 59);
in response to the first command and a determination that the first command provided by the person is not the predetermined command associated with automatic performance of the maneuver (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; and col. 25, line 12 - col. 26, line 59);
generating a notification, wherein the notification asks whether the maneuver is desired by the person (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26);
receiving an indication of consent by the person in response to the notification (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26); and
maneuvering the vehicle based on the predetermined command (col. 26, lines 60-66).
Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp further discloses:
wherein the indication of consent is provided through an actuation pattern associated with at least two consecutive actions for the device, the actuation pattern being distinct from an actuation pattern associated with standard use of the device (paragraphs [0043] and [0081-0085]; and FIG. 5, TURN SIGNAL LEVER OPERATIONS MENU-900).
Delp teaches that an autonomous vehicle control system should be configured to enable a user to select a number of turn signal lever clicks that will activate a particular operational mode (paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle using a user actuation pattern indicating a desired maneuver of Delp into the autonomous vehicle using a control panel or a voice recognition system indicating a desired maneuver of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an efficient manner for a user to confirm a desired autonomous maneuver.
Regarding claim 16, Li further discloses:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (col. 4, lines 19-40; and FIG. 1-A, processor-10, computer readable medium-12, vehicle-18, control system-24, speed control module-64, steering module-66, braking module-68, and driving system-70);
receiving a first command from a person in a vehicle (col. 23, line 47 - col. 24, line 11; and col. 25, lines 12-20);
determining that the first command is not a predetermined command (col. 26, lines 38-59);
associated with automatic performance of a maneuver by the vehicle (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; and col. 25, line 12 - col. 26, line 59);
in response to the first command and a determination that the first command provided by the person is not the predetermined command associated with automatic performance of the maneuver (col. 22, line 27 - col. 23, line 3; and col. 25, line 12 - col. 26, line 59);
generating a notification, wherein the notification asks whether the maneuver is desired by the person (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26);
receiving an indication of consent by the person in response to the notification (col. 24, lines 12-38; and col. 25, lines 21-26); and
maneuvering the vehicle based on the predetermined command (col. 26, lines 60-66).
Li does not disclose an actuation pattern. However, Delp further discloses:
wherein the indication of consent is provided through an actuation pattern associated with at least two consecutive actions for the device, the actuation pattern being distinct from an actuation pattern associated with standard use of the device (paragraphs [0043] and [0081-0085]; and FIG. 5, TURN SIGNAL LEVER OPERATIONS MENU-900).
Delp teaches that an autonomous vehicle control system should be configured to enable a user to select a number of turn signal lever clicks that will activate a particular operational mode (paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous vehicle using a user actuation pattern indicating a desired maneuver of Delp into the autonomous vehicle using a control panel or a voice recognition system indicating a desired maneuver of Li. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an efficient manner for a user to confirm a desired autonomous maneuver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667