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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/17/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 are amended by the applicants.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Interview summary
On 05/20/2026 Examiner discussed the allowance matter (that is sent via email) with Mr. James Mayfield to place the application in condition for allowance. On 06/02/2026, Examiner was notified by Mr. Mayfield and indicated that applicants denied the proposed amendments and would like to request an office action. Thus, examiner is issuing another office action.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
1. A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, whether a fuel or energy level of an autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold;
after the predetermined threshold has been met, determining, by the one or more processors, that a task requested by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be is completed before refueling or recharging; and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determining,…, whether a fuel or energy level of an autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold” and “after the predetermined threshold has been met, determining,…, that a task requested by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed before fueling or recharging” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging based on fueling/charging indicator in the vehicle. In same manner, a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging with the aid of pen and paper to calculate the driven miles based on the task is completed. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “by the one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. For the additional elements “controlling,…, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for fueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements “by the one or more processors” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the judicial exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements of “controlling,…, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for fueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea at a high level of generality as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the determining that the task requested by the passenger can be completed is based on a particular level of urgency for the refueling or recharging.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation wherein the determining that the task requested by the passenger can be completed is based on a particular level of urgency for the refueling or recharging is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, instructions for a set of tasks, wherein each task is associated with a particular trigger, and each trigger is mapped to a corresponding task.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation receiving, by the one or more processors, instructions for a set of tasks, wherein each task is associated with a particular trigger, and each trigger is mapped to a corresponding task merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein specifications of a level of urgency of each trigger are associated to the corresponding task.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation specifications of a level of urgency of each trigger are associated to the corresponding task merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to an autonomous vehicle claim under Step 1.
9. An autonomous vehicle comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors configured to:
determine whether a fuel or energy level of the autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold;
after the predetermined threshold has been met, determine that a task requested by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed before refueling or recharging; and
control the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “determine whether a fuel or energy level of the autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold” and “after the predetermined threshold has been met, determine that a task requested by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed before refueling or recharging” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging based on fueling/charging indicator in the vehicle. In same manner, a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging with the aid of pen and paper to calculate the driven miles based on the task is completed. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “a memory” and “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. For the additional elements “control the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements “a memory” and “one or more processors” amount to no more than mere instructions, generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception. For the additional elements of “control the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea at a high level of generality as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
10. The autonomous vehicle of claim 9, wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
11. The autonomous vehicle of claim 10, wherein authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
12. The autonomous vehicle of claim 9, wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
13. The autonomous vehicle of claim 12, wherein the determining that the task requested by the passenger can be completed is based on a particular level of urgency for the refueling or recharging.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation the task requested by the passenger can be completed is based on a particular level of urgency for the refueling or recharging is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
14. The autonomous vehicle of claim 9, wherein the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
15. The autonomous vehicle of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive instructions for a set of tasks, wherein each task is associated with a particular trigger, and each trigger is mapped to a corresponding task.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation receive instructions for a set of tasks, wherein each task is associated with a particular trigger, and each trigger is mapped to a corresponding task merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
16. The autonomous vehicle of claim 15, wherein specifications of a level of urgency of each trigger are associated to the corresponding task.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation specifications of a level of urgency of each trigger are associated to the corresponding task merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
17. A system comprising:
a queue configured to store tasks requested by a passenger of an autonomous vehicle;
a memory configured to store instructions for the autonomous vehicle to perform tasks;
and one or more processors configured to:
determine whether a fuel or energy level of the autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold;
after the predetermined threshold has been met, determine that one or more of the tasks stored in the queue can be completed before refueling or recharging; and
control the autonomous vehicle to complete the one or more tasks and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the one or more tasks stored in the queue can be completed.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations “determine whether a fuel or energy level of the autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold” and “after the predetermined threshold has been met, determine that one or more of the tasks stored in the queue can be completed before refueling or recharging” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging based on fueling/charging indicator in the vehicle. In same manner, a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging with the aid of pen and paper to calculate the driven miles based on the task is completed. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “a system,” “a queue configured to store tasks requested by a passenger of an autonomous vehicle,” “a memory configured to store instructions for the autonomous vehicle to perform tasks” and “one or more processors configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. For the additional elements “control the autonomous vehicle to complete the one or more tasks and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the one or more tasks stored in the queue can be completed” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements “a system,” “a queue configured to store tasks requested by a passenger of an autonomous vehicle,” “a memory configured to store instructions for the autonomous vehicle to perform tasks” and “one or more processors configured to” are amount to no more than mere instructions, generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception. For the additional elements of “control the autonomous vehicle to complete the one or more tasks and to thereafter drive to a location for refueling or recharging based on the determination that the one or more tasks stored in the queue can be completed” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea at a high level of generality as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
19. The system of claim 18, wherein authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
20. The system of claim 18, wherein the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed is additional elements merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 12, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by USPN 20070005202 to Breed in view of USPN 20150345962 to Graham.
Per claim 1:
Breed discloses:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, whether a fuel or energy level (Paragraph [0925] “Such sensors include… Gas tank fuel level and other fluid level sensor”) of an autonomous vehicle has met a predetermined threshold (Paragraph [0790] “a determination is made at step 389 whether the component's abnormality (i.e., some sort of predetermined threshold is cut off) has been satisfactorily addressed” please note that there is no predetermined threshold is claimed, so it could be considered anything);
after the predetermined threshold has been met (Paragraph [0790] “the component's abnormality has been satisfactorily addressed”), determining, by the one or more processors, that a task requested by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed before fueling or recharging(Fig. 4 shows a partial list of potential component failures (i.e., fallback tasks) and various sensors to detect and notify of component failure, also see Paragraph [0265, 0267]; Paragraph [0260,0261,0925] “message may also be sent to the dealer… repair facility which is established by a suitable transmission device… determination is used to alert a driver of the vehicle, a vehicle manufacturer, a vehicle dealer or a vehicle repair facility about the abnormal operation of a component… include… Gas tank fuel level and other fluid level sensor).
Breed does not explicitly disclose controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for fueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed.
However, Graham discloses in an analogous computer system controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for fueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed (Paragraph [0042] “system controller determines if the vehicle has sufficient range to travel the planned route based on the current fuel or battery charge level (step 501)… If the car does not have sufficient driving range (step 505), then the system controller notifies the user using notification system 129 that the car should be filled with gas, assuming an ICE-based car, or recharged, assuming an EV”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for fueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed as taught by Graham into the method of vehicle diagnostic systems as taught by Breed. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to complete the task and to thereafter drive to a location for fueling or recharging based on the determination that the task requested by the passenger of the autonomous vehicle can be completed to provide an efficient technology to utilize the fuel or energy efficiently so that the vehicle is maintained and runs as expected especially when there is limited access to charging facilities for autonomous vehicle as suggested by Graham (paragraph [0004]).
Per claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Breed does not explicitly disclose wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location.
However, Graham discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location (note here that the travel route is pickup/drop-off locations, see Paragraph [0042] “once all locations are correctly identified, the system plans the travel route (step 323) and enters the route into navigation system 127 (step 325)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location as taught by Graham into the method of vehicle diagnostic systems as taught by Breed. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein the task requested by the passenger is associated with the autonomous vehicle making a trip from a pickup location to a destination location to provide and efficient technique so as to perform the task automatically as scheduled event in the calendar as suggested by Graham (paragraph [0004]).
Per claim 6:
Breed discloses:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive to a base location when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle cannot be performed (Paragraph [0787] “Smart highways will result in vehicles traveling down highways under partial or complete control of an automatic system, i.e., not being controlled by the driver. The on-board diagnostic system will thus be able to determine failure of a component prior to or upon failure thereof and inform the vehicle's guidance system to cause the vehicle to move out of the stream of traffic, i.e., onto a shoulder of the highway, in a safe and orderly manner”).
Per claim 7:
Breed discloses:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, instructions for a set of tasks, wherein each task is associated with a particular trigger, and each trigger is mapped to a corresponding task (Paragraph [0718] “Detectors 311 are the temperature sensors which measure, for example, the temperature of the tire tread or sidewall… signal conditioning circuitry 312 are preferably provided to condition the signals provided by the detectors 311 indicative of the measured temperature. The signals are then forwarded to a comparator 313 for a comparison in order to determine whether the temperature of the tire treads for mating tires differs by a predetermined amount”).
Per claim 8:
Breed discloses:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein specifications of a level of urgency of each trigger are associated to the corresponding task (Paragraph [0235] “when the tire is unbalanced, the diagnostic module 51 will receive output from the sensors, determine whether the output is indicative of abnormal operation of the tire, e.g., lack of tire balance, and instruct or direct another vehicular system to respond to the unbalanced tire situation. Such an instruction may be a message to the driver indicating that the tire should now be balanced).
Claims 9 and 14-16 is/are the vehicle claim corresponding to method claims 1 and 6-8 rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1 and 6-8 as noted above.
Claims 12 is/are the vehicle claim corresponding to method claim 4 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 4 as noted above.
Claims 17 and 20 is/are the system claim corresponding to method claims 1 and 6 rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1 and 6 as noted above.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20070005202 to Breed in view of USPN 20150345962 to Graham and further in view of USPN 10369974 to Carlson et al.
Per claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, neither Breed nor Graham explicitly discloses wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
However, Carlson discloses in an analogous computer system wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle (Col. 26, lines 12-15 “optimize presentation of a list of most suitable charging stations for autonomous vehicle so that a user may have real-time information with which to select or authorize a particular charging station to effect driverless charging”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Carlson into the method of vehicle diagnostic systems as taught by the combination system of Breed and Graham. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein authentication information for fueling systems is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle to provide an efficient technique for optimizing the solutions for autonomous vehicles so as to not disrupt in the service/performance of the vehicle as suggested by Carlson (col. 1, lines 18-60).
Per claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, neither Breed nor Graham does not explicitly disclose wherein authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle.
However, Carlson discloses in an analogous computer system wherein authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle (Col. 26, lines 12-15 “optimize presentation of a list of most suitable charging stations (e.g., a maintenance depot) for autonomous vehicle so that a user may have real-time information with which to select or authorize a particular charging station to effect driverless charging”).
The feature of providing wherein authentication information for maintenance depots is used to control the autonomous vehicle to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 10-11 is/are the vehicle claim corresponding to method claims 2-3 respectively rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 2-3 respectively as noted above.
Claims 18-19 is/are the system claim corresponding to method claims 2-3 respectively, rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 2-3 respectively, as noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In order for these claims to be allowed, applicants must come over the outstanding 101 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
With respect to rejections under 35. U.S.C. 101 applicants indicate that the claimed embodiments clearly reflect this disclosed improvement in at least the claimed feature of "determining… whether recharging or refueling the autonomous vehicle is to be performed either before or after a task requested by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle is completed based on an urgency of the task and the determined fuel or energy level". The claims recite additional elements that meaningfully limit the scope to autonomous vehicle-specific control based on urgency of a passenger's task in view of the fuel or charge level of the autonomous vehicle. Thus, the claims, when viewed as a whole, recite improvements that are integrated into a practical application in order to address the above-identified problems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above in the rejections and further just having to determine if a task has been performed or not does not make the claim eligible. It is just another concept of abstract idea for autonomous vehicle. As explained above that a person is capable of deciding when to perform fueling or recharging with the aid of pen and paper to calculate the driven miles based on the average per mile given by a vehicle to whether to perform fueling or recharging. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Graham, Scott, Girish Baliga, and Panganamala R. Kumar. "Abstractions, architecture, mechanisms, and a middleware for networked control." IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 54.7 (2009): pp. 1490-1503.
Durfee, Edmund H., Patrick G. Kenny, and Karl C. Kluge. "Integrated premission planning and execution for unmanned ground vehicles." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents. 1997. pp. 348-354.
Freedy, Amos, et al. "Multiagent Adjustable Autonomy Framework (MAAF) for multi-robot, multi-human teams." 2008 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems. IEEE, 2008. pp. 498-505.
US12227173 - Systems and methods for a vehicle to use a fallback control system orthogonal to a primary control system are provided. A method includes collecting, by a fallback control system of a vehicle, sensor data generated by one or more sensors of the vehicle; determining, by the fallback control system using a first process different from a second process of a primary control system of the vehicle, an alternative action for the vehicle based on the sensor data; and sending, by the fallback control system based on the alternative action, an instruction for modifying an action associated with the primary control system upon a faulty condition associated with the primary control system.
US12474703 - Autonomous vehicles may have different specialized primary planners in the vehicle planning stack that each can generate a plan for the vehicle control stack. For instance, one primary planner may be used for the vehicle to drive forward, and another primary planner may be used for the vehicle to drive in reverse. Additionally, a fallback planner may be implemented to allow the autonomous vehicle to drive in a degraded state. A unified interface is provided between the planning stack and the control stack to manage communications between the different planners in the planning stack and the control stack.
US20240219905 - Autonomous vehicles may encounter situations prompting the autonomous vehicle to execute a stopping maneuver, or receive user input from a passenger of the autonomous vehicle that may cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a stopping maneuver (that is not part of nominal planning of the present mission of the autonomous vehicle). In some cases, the autonomous vehicle's mission may be interrupted. Such situations and user input may be diverse. Also, there may be many kinds of stopping maneuvers that the autonomous vehicle can execute in response to the situation or user input. Monitoring for the situations and user input, managing mission interruptions, and performing continuation of a mission can be non-trivial tasks to perform gracefully and effectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/Satish Rampuria/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
*****
Prosecution Insights