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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-6 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection made under 35 USC 103, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing the references individually, rather than the combined teaching. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this instant case, Yeom is relied upon for the teaching of a vehicle control device that comprises an autonomous driving mode and a manual driving mode and a switch to allow the driver to transition from the autonomous driving mode to manual driving mode only after stopping (wheels of the vehicles are fixed when the vehicle stop). Suzuki is relied upon for the teaching that the control device is connected between the autonomous driving system and the vehicle platform and a predetermined application program interface (API) defined for each signal. Norris is relied upon for the teaching of an emergency stop button.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that Norris does not consider whether or not the wheels are fixed as a condition for transitioning from the autonomous mode to manual mode. The examiner would like to indicate that this limitation is taught by Yeom. Yeom states, “Accordingly, when the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping” for switching to the manual driving mode, the autonomous vehicle may be safely switched to the manual driving mode after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode.” [0057]. Yeom teaches the controller allowing a driver to select an option of switching from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode only after stopping (wheels are fixed), thus, the system prohibits switching to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels of the vehicle are not fixed. Norris is relied upon for the teaching that the switch is an emergency stop button. Therefore, the prior art meets the claim limitations, and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 6, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered are but moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/02/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. Claim 1, 3, and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al. (US 20240101159, hereinafter Yeom) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20210245774, hereinafter Suzuki) and in further view of Norris et al. (US 20070198145, hereinafter Norris).
Regarding claim 1, Yeom teaches a vehicle control device connected to an autonomous driving system and a vehicle platform that performs autonomous driving according to an instruction from the autonomous driving system (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0038]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the autonomous vehicle is provided with an autonomous driving controller 100 for overall autonomous driving control. A display 110 for Audio, Video, Navigation (AVN), a driving mode selection switch 112, and a video input device 114 are connected to an input unit of the autonomous driving controller 100 to transmit and receive an electrical signal, and a steering controller 120 for steering control, a braking controller 130 for driving control such as acceleration and deceleration, and a motor controller 140 are connected to an output unit of the autonomous driving controller 100 to receive a command signal.”: [0054]: “On the other hand, the autonomous driving controller 100 may be configured to control switching to the manual driving mode of the autonomous vehicle after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode in the case of receiving a signal indicating that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping.”), comprising:
a memory that stores a program that includes a predetermined application program (see at least [0138]: “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method in accordance with various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. The control device according to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented through a nonvolatile memory configured to store algorithms for controlling operation of various components of a vehicle or data about software commands for executing the algorithms, and a processor configured to perform operation to be described above using the data stored in the memory…The processor may include various logic circuits and operation circuits, may process data according to a program provided from the memory, and may generate a control signal according to the processing result.”; [0139]: “The control device may be at least one microprocessor operated by a predetermined program which may include a series of commands for carrying out the method included in the aforementioned various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure.”); and
a processor that controls the vehicle platform according to the instruction from the autonomous driving system by executing the program (see at least [0138]: “Furthermore, the term related to a control device such as “controller”, “control apparatus”, “control unit”, “control device”, “control module”, or “server”, etc refers to a hardware device including a memory and a processor configured to execute one or more steps interpreted as an algorithm structure. The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method in accordance with various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. The control device according to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented through a nonvolatile memory configured to store algorithms for controlling operation of various components of a vehicle or data about software commands for executing the algorithms, and a processor configured to perform operation to be described above using the data stored in the memory.”), wherein:
the vehicle control device includes a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode as vehicle modes (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0010]: “Various aspects of the present disclosure are directed to providing a method of controlling switching to a manual driving mode of an autonomous vehicle, which enables switching to the manual driving mode to be safely performed without interfering with a nearby vehicle in a safe lane or a safe place according to a surrounding driving environment by allowing a driver to select between switching to the manual driving mode while driving or switching to the manual driving mode after stopping to switch to the manual driving mode while the autonomous vehicle is driven in an autonomous driving mode.”);
the vehicle platform is configured to receive a manual driving operation in the manual driving mode (see at least [0037]: “FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 are control configuration diagrams of a method of controlling switching to a manual driving mode of an autonomous vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure.”), and receive a driving instruction from the autonomous driving system in the autonomous driving mode (see at least [0038]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the autonomous vehicle is provided with an autonomous driving controller 100 for overall autonomous driving control.”; [0041]: “Furthermore, the autonomous driving controller 100 is configured to perform a control operation to switch the driving mode to the autonomous driving mode or the manual driving mode according to a switching signal of the driving mode selection switch 112 which may be operated by the driver.”); and
the processor is configured to:
receive an operation signal indicating that a switch has been operated while the vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode (see at least [0061]: “For example, when the driver presses the manual driving mode button of the driving mode selection switch 112 or requests switching to the manual driving mode through the voice input device 114, the autonomous driving controller 100 may confirm that there is a request for switching to the manual driving mode.”), and
based upon receiving the operation signal: prohibit a transition from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode on condition that wheels of the vehicle platform are not fixed (see at least [0011]: “Various aspects of the present disclosure are directed to providing a method of controlling switching to a manual driving mode of an autonomous vehicle, the method including verifying, by an autonomous driving controller, whether a driver requests switching to the manual driving mode, determining, by the autonomous driving controller, whether the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode while driving” or “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping”, controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, switching to the manual driving mode after moving the autonomous vehicle to a safe lane including an agreed lane provided from a control center upon concluding that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode while driving”, and controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, switching to the manual driving mode after moving the autonomous vehicle to a safe place including an agreed place provided from the control center upon concluding that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping.”; [0054]: “On the other hand, the autonomous driving controller 100 may be configured to control switching to the manual driving mode of the autonomous vehicle after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode in the case of receiving a signal indicating that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping.”; [0057]: “Accordingly, when the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping” for switching to the manual driving mode, the autonomous vehicle may be safely switched to the manual driving mode after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode.” Yeom teaches the controller allowing a driver to select an option of switching from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode after stopping, thus, the system prohibits switching to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels of the vehicle are not fixed.), and
transition from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode based upon the condition that the wheels are fixed (see at least [0057]: “Accordingly, when the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping” for switching to the manual driving mode, the autonomous vehicle may be safely switched to the manual driving mode after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode.” Yeom teaches the controller allowing a driver to select an option of switching from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode after stopping (wheels are fixed).).
Yeom fails to explicitly teach that the control device is connected between the autonomous driving system and the vehicle platform and a predetermined application program interface (API) defined for each signal.
However, Suzuki teaches an apparatus and system for a vehicle and an autonomous driving system that comprises a control device connected between an autonomous driving system and a vehicle platform (see at least Fig. 1 and [0036]: “FIG. 1 schematically shows a MaaS system in which a vehicle according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is used. Referring to FIG. 1, this MaaS system includes a vehicle 1. Vehicle 1 includes a vehicle main body 2 and an autonomous driving kit (ADK) 3. Vehicle main body 2 includes a vehicle control interface 4, a vehicle platform (VP) 5, and a DCM (Data Communication Module) 6. The MaaS system includes, in addition to vehicle 1, a data server 7, a mobility service platform (MSPF) 8, and autonomous driving related mobility services 9.”; [0039]: “Vehicle control interface 4 can communicate with ADK 3 through a CAN (Controller Area Network) for example. Vehicle control interface 4 executes a predetermined API (Application Program Interface) defined for each signal to be communicated, to thereby receive various commands from ADK 3 and output the state of vehicle main body 2 to ADK 3.”) and a predetermined application program interface (API) defined for each signal (see at least [0039]: “Vehicle control interface 4 can communicate with ADK 3 through a CAN (Controller Area Network) for example. Vehicle control interface 4 executes a predetermined API (Application Program Interface) defined for each signal to be communicated, to thereby receive various commands from ADK 3 and output the state of vehicle main body 2 to ADK 3.”; [0047]: “MSPF 8 publishes APIs for using various types of data regarding the vehicle state and the vehicle control necessary for development of the ADS. ADS companies can use, as the API, data regarding the vehicle state and the vehicle control necessary for development of the ADS, stored in data server 7.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and provide a control device connected between an autonomous driving system and a vehicle platform and a predetermined application program interface (API) defined for each signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for various software to interact together and use the API data for additional development of an autonomous driving system [0047].
The combination of Yeom and Suzuki fails to explicitly teach that the switch is an emergency stop button.
However, Norris teaches a method and system for transitioning out of an autonomous driving mode when an emergency stop button has been operated while the vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode (see at least [0035]: “Embodiments of this invention provide systems and methods for switching between autonomous and manual operations of a vehicle.”; [0052]: “In one such embodiment, the vehicle 102 is utilized as a military vehicle…Untrained military personnel may enter the vehicle 102 and press the E-Stop button, causing the vehicle 102 to exit autonomous mode and become inoperable as an autonomous unit until reset. The personnel are then able to drive the vehicle 102 in a conventional manner. For instance, they can drive the vehicle 102 from the front line to a position in the rear.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom and Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Norris and provide an emergency stop button that can be operated while the vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the driver to trigger an emergency stop of the vehicle to exit the autonomous mode and stop the vehicle [0052].
Regarding claim 3, modified Yeom teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Yeom fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor permits a transition to the autonomous driving mode on condition that the vehicle platform is activated from a state of being not activated when a transition is made to the manual driving mode.
However, Norris teaches a method and system for switching between an autonomous driving mode and manual driving mode wherein a processor permits a transition to an autonomous driving mode on condition that a vehicle platform is activated from a state of being not activated when a transition is made to a manual driving mode (see at least [0035]: “Embodiments of this invention provide systems and methods for switching between autonomous and manual operations of a vehicle.”; [0052]: “In one such embodiment, the vehicle 102 is utilized as a military vehicle…Untrained military personnel may enter the vehicle 102 and press the E-Stop button, causing the vehicle 102 to exit autonomous mode and become inoperable as an autonomous unit until reset.”; [0095]: “The embodiment shown also comprises a mode selector 612. The mode selector 612 allows a user to select a manual or autonomous mode. Like the relays shown in FIG. 12, selection of the manual mode causes power to the autonomous system to be disabled. In one embodiment, the mode selector 612 is used to reset the system after an E-Stop has been triggered and then cleared, by pressing the Autonomous side of the switch. Norris teaches using an E-Stop to switch from autonomous to manual mode and resetting the system after the E-Stop that has been triggered to operate the autonomous mode again.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom to incorporate the teachings of Norris and provide a means permit a transition to an autonomous driving mode on condition that a vehicle platform is activated from a state of being not activated when a transition is made to a manual driving mode, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the driver to transition back into autonomous driving mode after stopping the vehicle from the manual driving mode.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yeom teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yeom further wherein the wheels are fixed based upon the processor activating a device (see at least [0054]: “On the other hand, the autonomous driving controller 100 may be configured to control switching to the manual driving mode of the autonomous vehicle after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode in the case of receiving a signal indicating that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping.”; [0057]: “Accordingly, when the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping” for switching to the manual driving mode, the autonomous vehicle may be safely switched to the manual driving mode after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode.”).
Yeom fails to explicitly teach activating a P-lock device that fixes rotation of an output shaft of a transmission of the vehicle.
However, Suzuki teaches an apparatus and system for a vehicle and an autonomous driving system that activates a P-lock device that fixes rotation of an output shaft of a transmission of a vehicle (see at least [0070]: “P lock system 552 is configured to control a P lock device (not shown) provided for the transmission of vehicle 1. More specifically, a gear (lock gear) is provided to be coupled to a rotational element in the transmission. Further, a parking lock pole capable of adjusting the position by an actuator is also provided for a teeth portion of the lock gear. The P lock device fits a protrusion located on the head of the parking lock pole to thereby fix rotation of the output shaft of the transmission.”; [0074]: “P lock system 552 receives a control command from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, and controls the P lock device in accordance with the control command.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and provide a means to activates a P-lock device that fixes rotation of an output shaft of a transmission of a vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order lock the transmission and prevent the vehicle from moving.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al. (US 20240101159, hereinafter Yeom) and Suzuki et al. (US 20210245774, hereinafter Suzuki) and Norris et al. (US 20070198145, hereinafter Norris) and in view of Ellis (US 20210178934, hereinafter Ellis).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yeom teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yeom further teaches wherein: the vehicle platform is further capable of autonomous driving according to an instruction from a driving system (see at least [0038]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the autonomous vehicle is provided with an autonomous driving controller 100 for overall autonomous driving control.”); and
the processor controls the vehicle platform according to the instruction from the driving system by executing the program (see at least [0138]: “Furthermore, the term related to a control device such as “controller”, “control apparatus”, “control unit”, “control device”, “control module”, or “server”, etc refers to a hardware device including a memory and a processor configured to execute one or more steps interpreted as an algorithm structure. The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method in accordance with various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. The control device according to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented through a nonvolatile memory configured to store algorithms for controlling operation of various components of a vehicle or data about software commands for executing the algorithms, and a processor configured to perform operation to be described above using the data stored in the memory.”), and
transitions from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed (see at least [0054]: “On the other hand, the autonomous driving controller 100 may be configured to control switching to the manual driving mode of the autonomous vehicle after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode in the case of receiving a signal indicating that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping.”).
Yeom fails to explicitly teach utilizing a remote driving system to control the vehicle and transitions from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed when the processor is unable to receive the instruction from the remote driving system and a power mode status of the vehicle is on.
However, Ellis teaches an apparatus and method for an autonomous vehicle that comprises a remote driving system to control the vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0062]: “Each of the one or more remote computing devices 106 can include one or more processors and one or more memory devices. The one or more memory devices can be used to store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors of the one or more remote computing devices 106 cause the one or more processors to perform operations and/or functions including operations and/or functions associated with the vehicle 108 including sending and/or receiving data or signals to and from the vehicle 108, monitoring the state of the vehicle 108, and/or controlling the vehicle 108.”) and transitions from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed when the processor is unable to receive the instruction from the remote driving system and a power mode status of the vehicle is on (see at least [0039] The autonomous vehicle (ore a remote computing system) can detect the triggering events and determine one or more action(s) to be performed by the systems on-board the autonomous vehicle in response to the triggering event…Such a response can be appropriate when the vehicle is unable to autonomously navigate (e.g., due to a lack of communicability with the autonomy system). As such, the onboard computing system of the autonomous vehicle (or a remote computing system) can communicate with vehicle control components of the autonomous vehicle to decelerate and/or steer the autonomous vehicle until the autonomous vehicle reaches a stopped position. In the event that a passenger is present in the autonomous vehicle, the action(s) can include allowing the passenger to manually control the autonomous vehicle…In such a scenario, the autonomous vehicle may also perform a safe stop maneuver so that the passenger can be oriented to take control of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., while the vehicle is stationary). The onboard vehicle computing system of the autonomous vehicle (or a remote computing system) can be configured to permit a passenger to control the autonomous vehicle in scenarios in which the vehicle's passengers would not be placed in danger.” Ellis teaches switching from the autonomous mode to manual mode when there is a lack of communications with the autonomous system and the vehicle decelerate until the vehicle reaches a stopped position (wheels are fixed) while the vehicle is still powered on.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom to incorporate the teachings of Ellis and provide a remote driving system to control the vehicle and transitions from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed when the processor is unable to receive the instruction from the remote driving system and a power mode status of the vehicle is on, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to permit a passenger to control the autonomous vehicle in scenarios in which the vehicle's passengers would not be placed in danger when there is a lack of communications in autonomous mode [0039].
Regarding claim 5, modified Yeom teaches the limitations of claim 4. Yeom further teaches wherein the processor transitions from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed after a switch is operated (see at least [0054]: “On the other hand, the autonomous driving controller 100 may be configured to control switching to the manual driving mode of the autonomous vehicle after moving the vehicle to a safe place where it is easy to switch to the manual driving mode in the case of receiving a signal indicating that the driver selects “switching to the manual driving mode after stopping.” Yeom teaches the controller allowing a driver select to transition from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode after stopping (wheels are fixed).).
Yeom fails to explicitly teach a remote driving system to control the vehicle and the switch is an emergency stop switch.
However, Norris teaches a method and system for switching between autonomous and manual operation of a vehicle that comprises a remote driving system to control a vehicle (see at least [0012]: “Thus the vehicle may be controlled by an operator in the vehicle using the mechanical vehicle control systems, or by a remote entity using the autonomous control system.”; [0037]: “The vehicle 102 shown comprises operational systems, including a steering system 104, a braking system 106, a throttle system 108, and a transmission system 110…The autonomous mode is a mode in which at least a portion of the vehicle is under at least partial computer control and may comprise, for example, robotic or remote operation, such as tele-operation. In tele-operation, a user pilots the vehicle 102 remotely using a remote monitor and control system, referred to herein as an Operator Control Unit (OCU). The remote monitor may rely on cameras or other sensors for determining the vehicle's 102 position and status.”) and an emergency stop switch (see at least [0013]: “The e-Stop system is a subsystem of the safety stop system. It includes normally disengaged electrical clutches associated with each system that causes the vehicle to move and powers down all of the clutches in an E-Stop.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom to incorporate the teachings of Norris and provide a remote driving system to control a vehicle and an emergency stop switch, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order remotely operate the vehicle and stop the vehicle when an emergency stop switch is triggered.
The combination of Yeom and Norris fails to explicitly teach transitioning from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed when the processor is unable to receive the instruction from the remote driving system.
However, Ellis teaches an apparatus and method for an autonomous vehicle that transitions from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed when a processor is unable to receive instruction from a remote driving system (see at least [0039] The autonomous vehicle (ore a remote computing system) can detect the triggering events and determine one or more action(s) to be performed by the systems on-board the autonomous vehicle in response to the triggering event…Such a response can be appropriate when the vehicle is unable to autonomously navigate (e.g., due to a lack of communicability with the autonomy system). As such, the onboard computing system of the autonomous vehicle (or a remote computing system) can communicate with vehicle control components of the autonomous vehicle to decelerate and/or steer the autonomous vehicle until the autonomous vehicle reaches a stopped position. In the event that a passenger is present in the autonomous vehicle, the action(s) can include allowing the passenger to manually control the autonomous vehicle…In such a scenario, the autonomous vehicle may also perform a safe stop maneuver so that the passenger can be oriented to take control of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., while the vehicle is stationary). The onboard vehicle computing system of the autonomous vehicle (or a remote computing system) can be configured to permit a passenger to control the autonomous vehicle in scenarios in which the vehicle's passengers would not be placed in danger.” Ellis teaches switching from the autonomous mode to manual mode when there is a lack of communications with the autonomous system and the vehicle decelerate until the vehicle reaches a stopped position (wheels are fixed).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeom and Norris to incorporate the teachings of Ellis and provide a means to transition from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode on condition that the wheels are fixed when a processor is unable to receive instruction from a remote driving system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to permit a passenger to control the autonomous vehicle in scenarios in which the vehicle's passengers would not be placed in danger when there is a lack of communications in autonomous mode [0039].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time).
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656