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 amendment filed on 11/17/2025.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended by the applicants.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Examiner’s Interview summary
On 12/15/2025 Examiner discussed the allowance matter (that is sent via email) with Mr. James Mayfield to place the application in condition for allowance. Examiner received call from Mr. Mayfield and indicated that applicants’ needs more time to consider the proposed amendments and would like to request an office action. Thus, examiner is issuing another office action.
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. (new) 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, 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; and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to drive to a location based on the determination of when recharging or refueling the autonomous vehicle is to be performed.
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,…, 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” 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 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.
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 drive to a location based on the determination of when recharging or refueling the autonomous vehicle should be performed,” 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 drive to a location based on the determination of when recharging or refueling the autonomous vehicle should be performed,” 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) The method of claim 4, wherein the trip is terminated in order to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle has a high level of urgency.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation the trip is terminated in order to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle has a high level of urgency 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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, determining, by the one or more processors, 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; and
control the autonomous vehicle to drive to a location based on the determination of when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle should be performed.
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, 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” 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 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.
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 drive to a location based on the determination of when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle should be performed,” 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 drive to a location based on the determination of when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle should be performed,” 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) The autonomous vehicle of claim 12, wherein the trip is terminated in order to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle has a high level of urgency.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation the trip is terminated in order to perform the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle has a high level of urgency 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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 whether recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is to be performed either before or after one or more of the tasks stored in the queue are completed based on an urgency of the one or more tasks and the determined fuel or energy level; and
control the autonomous vehicle to drive to a location based on the determination of when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle should be performed.
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 whether recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle is to be performed either before or after one or more of the tasks stored in the queue are completed based on an urgency of the one or more tasks and the determined fuel or energy level” 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 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.
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 drive to a location based on the determination of when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle should be performed,” 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 drive to a location based on the determination of when the recharging or refueling of the autonomous vehicle should be performed,” 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. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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 20120083959 to Dolgov et al.
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, 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 (Since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Breed teaches (Fig. 4 shows a partial list of potential component failures (i.e., fallback tasks) and the sensors from the list also see Paragraph [0265, 0267]; Paragraph [0260,0261] “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”); Paragraph [0925] “Such sensors include… Gas tank fuel level and other fluid level sensor); and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to drive to a location based on the determination of when recharging or refueling the autonomous vehicle is to be performed (Paragraph [0788] “the guidance system of the vehicle which controls the movement of the vehicle would be notified… the guidance system would be programmed to move the vehicle… possibly to a service station or dealer”).
Breed does not explicitly disclose based on an urgency of the task and the determined fuel or energy level.
However, Dolgov discloses in an analogous computer system based on an urgency of the task and the determined fuel or energy level (Paragraph [0035] “vehicle and passenger sensors 250 provide data about the passengers 195 in the vehicle… fuel level sensor 231 may monitor the amount of gasoline held by gas tank 181” note here the urgency is determined by the sensors which measures the task of fuel level).
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 based on an urgency of the task and the determined fuel or energy level as taught by Dolgov 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 based on an urgency of the task and the determined fuel or energy level to provide an efficient technology to utilize the fuel or energy efficiently so that the vehicle runs longer.
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, Dolgov 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 (Paragraph [0065] “passenger 390, may input a destination (e.g., 123 Oak Street) into the navigation system using touch screen 317 or button inputs 319”).
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 Dolgov 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 it the autonomous vehicle would have performed and does not affect the driving capability of the vehicle as suggested by Dolgov (paragraph [0002-0004]).
Per claim 6:
Breed discloses:
6. (new) 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. (new) 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. (new) 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 20120083959 to Dolgov et al. 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 Dolgov explicitly disclose 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 Dolgov. 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, Breed 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
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 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/Satish Rampuria/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193