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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species B, claims 30-39 in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction requirement is not proper, because according to the applicant that there is no serious burden on the examiner if the restriction were not required.
This is not found persuasive because the following:
MPEP 808 cites the reasons for insisting upon a restriction requirement. This application includes patentably distinct species. The examiner has realized a burden exists when more than one invention is claimed and requires numerous class/subclass searches. The following are the reasons:
Claim 30 focuses on the TCC/TCU infrastructure, defining it as a hierarchy that collects, processes, and sends vehicle-specific guidance and environmental data while claim 20 is focusing on the vehicle components, defining an onboard unit (OBU) and sensing module that provides data to, and receives instructions from, the TCC/TCU. Claim 30 defines the control system as a hierarchy of traffic control centers/units (TCCs/TCUs). Claim 20 characterizes the system as the one that includes an "onboard unit” (OBU) provided in a vehicle. Claim 30 emphasizes that the TCC/TCU collects vehicle-specific information and driving environment from the vehicle, and sends the vehicle-specific guidance instructions. Claim 20 focuses on the OBU’s interaction, emphasizing it “receives the vehicle specific instructions from the TCC/TCU; and sends vehicle-specific information and driving environment information to the TCC/TCU.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
An action on claims 30-39 as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. (hereafter referred to as “Konrardy”) (US 10,185,999 B1) and in view of Hayes et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hayes”) (US 9,811,085 B1).
Regarding claim 30, Konrardy discloses a remote monitoring system in which the server (140) receives operation data (e.g., acceleration, braking, speed, heading, etc.), and environment data (e.g., weather, road, traffic or other conditions) from one or more vehicle, wherein the server (140) processes the data to determine one or more risk levels associated with the vehicle (see column 0041, lines 34-62; column 0042, lines 36-51).
Konrardy is merely missing to disclose the features of “the automatic or semi-automated computational modules collect data, process information, and produce vehicle-specific guidance instructions using the vehicle-specific information and the driving environment information; and the TCC/TCU communication module sends the vehicle-specific guidance instructions and driving environment information at the Guidance Level of vehicle driving tasks to the vehicle.”
Hayes discloses a system and method for instructing an autonomous to travel to a recommended parking location based on the data received from the autonomous vehicle, wherein the data include the vehicle operational data and environment conditions surrounding the vehicle (see column 4, lines 12-23), wherein the system includes a server (110) (column 4, line 64 through column 5, line 17) transmits travel instructions to the autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 4A-4E; column 15, line 53 through column 16, line 67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Konrardy reference with the teachings of as taught by Hayes to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of guiding an autonomous vehicle to find and enter a parking space without human intervention while ensuring reliable operation of the vehicle even when the vehicle sensors fail due to weather or road conditions.
Regarding claim 31, Hayes discloses that the traveling instructions are generated for the autonomous vehicle to travel from a location to a parking location (see column 1, line 51 through column 2, line 18), and the environment conditional information are collected by one or more sensors arranged in the vehicle (see column 4, lines 12-63), wherein the one or more sensors may detect and store data relating to the maintenance of the vehicle and another information (see column 7, lines 4-20).
Regarding claims 32-35, Konrardy discloses that the sensors (120) include one or more of a GPS unit, a radar unit, a LIDAR unit, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, a camera, an accelerometer, a tachometer, or a speedometer. Therefore, Konrardy suggests using the sensors on the autonomous vehicles to carry out the tasks of “vehicle maneuver comprises car following, speed, headway, position in the lane, lane changing, horizontal alignment and changes, and vertical alignment and changes” (see column 7, lines 4-20; column 12, lines 29-44).
Regarding claim 36, Hayes discloses a system and method for instructing an autonomous to travel to a recommended parking location based on the data received from the autonomous vehicle, wherein the data include the vehicle operational data and environment conditions surrounding the vehicle (see column 4, lines 12-23), wherein the system includes a server (110) (column 4, line 64 through column 5, line 17) transmits travel instructions to the autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 4A-4E; column 15, line 53 through column 16, line 67).
Regarding claim 37, Konrardy discloses that the controller (204) processes the sensor data to determine when an incident has occurred, and record the information regarding the incident and the vehicle status in the data storage (228) or the database (146) of the server (140) (see column 29, lines 22-46; column 32, lines 54-61).
Regarding claim 38, Hayes discloses a system and method for instructing an autonomous to travel to a recommended parking location based on the data received from the autonomous vehicle, wherein the data include the vehicle operational data and environment conditions surrounding the vehicle (see column 4, lines 12-23), wherein the system includes a server (110) (column 4, line 64 through column 5, line 17) transmits travel instructions to the autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 4A-4E; column 15, line 53 through column 16, line 67). In addition, Hayes describes the infrastructure (240) further has the capability of communicating with the vehicle by transmitting parking data to the vehicle (see column 9, lines 11-44).
Regarding claim 39, Konrardy discloses that the on-board computer/mobile device 110/114, which shown in Fig. 1A, and Fig. 2 and further illustrated in column 11, line 14 through column 12, lines 13, includes a communication (220), and a control unit (204) (column 23, line 6-67).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2026/0139594 A1 by Okumura et al. which discloses a computing system/device for an autonomous passenger vehicle. This system is for safely navigating autonomous vehicles through unexpected obstacles or complex environments by using remote operation; US 5,610,821 A by Gazis et al. which discloses an optimal route planning system; WO-9607167-A1 by Hassett JJ which discloses an electronic vehicle toll collection using in-vehicle transponder to store prepaid funds and determines the specific toll amount on signals received from a toll facility; WO-9521405-A2 by Zelinkovsky which discloses a transport system.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P. Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights