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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an RCE on 03/04/2026. Claims 1 and 10 were amended. Claims 1-19 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102: Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 with respect to Taveira et al. (US20220221867A1) have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely only on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in view Rasmusson et al. (US20240077327A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taveira et al. (US20220221867A1) in view of Rasmusson et al. (US20240077327A1), hereinafter referred to as Taveira and Rasmusson respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Taveira discloses A method comprising:
controlling, by one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode to stop at a pullover location (“Some autonomous vehicles can be used or configured for passenger service and/or cargo service (e.g., delivery service). For example, a user may provide a pickup location and/or a drop-off location to a passenger dispatching service, which can relay the passenger pick-up and drop-off locations to an autonomous vehicle.” [0054]);
while the autonomous vehicle is stopped at the pullover location (“In some implementations, the certain distance may be configured by the passenger (e.g., in vehicle, on a mobile device, etc.) or other party. In some instances, the certain distance may be adjusted (e.g., automatically or in response to a user/passenger confirmation) based on various circumstances. “[0060] see also [0054-0059, 0062 and 0129])
and based on the determining, sending, by the one or more processors, a signal in order to provide the option to the passenger (“In some implementations, the vehicle may present a number of alternate drop-off locations on a display screen (e.g., a display screen within the vehicle, etc.) viewable by passengers riding in the vehicle. A respective passenger may select one of the alternate drop-off locations presented on the display screen. “[0064]);
while the autonomous vehicle is stopped at the pullover location, receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication that the passenger has selected the option (“In some implementations, the vehicle may present a number of alternate drop-off locations on a display screen (e.g., a display screen within the vehicle, etc.) viewable by passengers riding in the vehicle. A respective passenger may select one of the alternate drop-off locations presented on the display screen. The vehicle may drive to and drop off the respective passenger at the alternate drop-off location selected by the respective passenger. “[0064]);
and in response to receiving the indication, controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle in the autonomous driving mode to a new pullover location (“The autonomous vehicle 300 may determine to maneuver to the alternate drop-off location selected by the first passenger.” [0126] see also [0054-0055]).
Taveira does not explicitly teach determining, by the one or more processors, whether a passenger should be provided with an option to trigger the autonomous vehicle to move from the pullover location to a new pullover location based on whether there are alternative pullover locations available.
However, Rasmusson does teach determining, by the one or more processors, whether a passenger should be provided with an option to trigger the autonomous vehicle to move from the pullover location to a new pullover location based on whether there are alternative pullover locations available (“the computing device may determine that the first negative space is not available for pick-up or drop-off because it is too small but that the second negative space is available. Thus, the computing device may identify the second negative space as an available location.” [0040],
“Characterizing available locations may involve, for each available location, determining …… or any other suitable data that affect the suitability of the location for a drop-off or pick-up…………..The computing device may record this information in association with each available location and use the information when calculating a viability score for each available location” [0041],
“the computing device may provide instructions to present graphical representations …… the computing device may determine if it has received user input specifying a different location than the highest ranked location or otherwise selected location. …. provide instructions to navigate to the user-specified location.” [0049] and
“The user input may come in the form of a user selection via the autonomous-vehicle UI …… representation of a pick-up or drop-off location.” [0050]). Both Taveira and Rasmusson teach methods for autonomous vehicle operation. However, Rasmusson explicitly teaches determining, by the one or more processors, whether a passenger should be provided with an option to trigger the autonomous vehicle to move from the pullover location to a new pullover location based on whether there are alternative pullover locations available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle method of Taveira to also include determining, by the one or more processors, whether a passenger should be provided with an option to trigger the autonomous vehicle to move from the pullover location to a new pullover location based on whether there are alternative pullover locations available, as taught by Rasmusson, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the autonomous vehicle user experience (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Rasmusson, 0040-0050]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Taveira discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the passenger should be provided with the option occurs while the autonomous vehicle is stopped at the pullover location (“In some implementations, the vehicle may present a number of alternate drop-off locations on a display screen (e.g., a display screen within the vehicle, etc.) viewable by passengers riding in the vehicle. A respective passenger may select one of the alternate drop-off locations presented on the display screen. The vehicle may drive to and drop off the respective passenger at the alternate drop-off location selected by the respective passenger.” [0064]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Taveira discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the passenger should be provided with an option (“Also, the ability of vehicles implementing various techniques disclosed herein to dynamically determine one or more alternate drop-off and/or pick-up locations based on passenger preferences and/or needs may ensure that passengers needing additional time to enter or exit the vehicle, passengers needing additional space to enter or exit the vehicle, and/or passengers with certain physical attributes or limitations are picked up and dropped off at locations that accommodate these passengers. In this way, vehicles implementing various aspects of the subject matter disclosed herein may pick-up and drop-off passengers in a safer and more convenient manner than conventional vehicles.” [0065])
includes determining whether the autonomous vehicle is stopped at the pullover location in or within a predetermined distance of an area including certain types of roadway features (“The exterior sensors 372 may include any suitable sensors or devices that can be used, individually or in conjunction with one another, to scan the surrounding scene for objects, environmental features, roads, route features, other vehicles, traffic lights, weather conditions, obstacles, hazardous conditions, and other attributes, characteristics, or properties of the surrounding scene.” [0086]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Taveira discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the certain types of roadway features include an intersection (“FIG. 5C shows an illustration 500C depicting the autonomous vehicle 300 selecting the alternate drop-off and pick-up location 540. The alternate location 540 is approximately halfway between the house 520 and the intersection 504.” [0134] see also [0058, 0060 and 0062]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Taveira discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the certain types of roadway features include a bridge (“In some implementations, the navigation system 374 can access or receive detailed map information (such as 3D point clouds) that includes information about roads, bridges, buildings, landmarks, elevations, construction zones, real-time traffic conditions, weather information, event information, and the like directly from one or more sources such as (but not limited to) governmental institutions, subscription-based services, user-generated map collections, crowdsourced mapping information, mapping information provided by other devices, and so on (e.g., without an intermediary system or service).” [0091]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Taveira discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the certain types of roadway features include a tunnel (“The autonomous vehicle 300 may be any type of vehicle, including (but not limited to) cars, trucks, vans, buses, street cars, trains, subways, aircrafts, boats, and so on, regardless of how powered or driven.” [0082]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Taveira discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the certain types of roadway features include railroad tracks (“The autonomous vehicle 300 may be any type of vehicle, including (but not limited to) cars, trucks, vans, buses, street cars, trains, subways, aircrafts, boats, and so on, regardless of how powered or driven.” [0082]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Taveira discloses The method of claim 1, wherein sending the signal causes the option to be displayed on a display of the autonomous vehicle when the passenger is inside of the autonomous vehicle (“In response thereto, the passenger may use the touch-sensitive display to indicate whether the specified drop-off location is acceptable, or whether an alternate drop-off location is preferred. The user interface 380 may be provided in any suitable location within the autonomous vehicle including, for example, embedded within the back surface of the front seats.” [0099]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Taveira discloses The method of claim 1, wherein sending the signal causes the option to be displayed on a display of a client computing device of the passenger when the passenger is not inside the autonomous vehicle (“In other implementations, a passenger's mobile computing device may provide some or all the functionalities of the user interface 378.” [0099]).
Regarding claims 19, Taveira discloses The system of claim 10, further comprising the autonomous vehicle (“FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of an autonomous vehicle 300 (which may correspond to the autonomous vehicles 130, 230 of FIGS. 1 and 2) according to some implementations. The autonomous vehicle 300 may be any type of vehicle, including (but not limited to) cars, trucks, vans, buses, street cars, trains, subways, aircrafts, boats, and so on, regardless of how powered or driven.” [0082]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights