DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1-16 are pending in Instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 07/31/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the method of claim 1511” should read “the method of claim 15”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Regarding the term “an exception condition” in claim 2, examiner is unsure if this is a new exception condition, or the same exception condition listed in Claim 1. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further clarification is required.
7. Regarding the term “the first exception condition” and “the second exception condition” in claim 3 and 14, examiner is unsure if these are two different exception conditions, or the same exception condition listed in Claim 1. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further clarification is required. The terms “the first exception condition” and “the second exception condition” is also lacking antecedent basis. Correction is required.
8. Regarding the term “…a second signal indicating a second exception condition...” in claim 16, examiner is unsure if this “a second signal” is the same “second signal” previous described in the claim that is being received by a second autonomous vehicle or if it is meant to be a completely different second signal. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further clarification is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a virtual driving environment generating system” – in claim 1, 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“a virtual driving environment generating system” – processor [0006]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 non-obviousness.
12. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust (US 20170192423) in view of Lockwood (US 20200183394).
Regarding Claim 1, Rust discloses A remote operator safety station comprising: (Rust, see at least [Abstract] wherein a remote assistance interface is used to generate a response to an assistance request)
a user station comprising a user interface configured to receive one or more inputs from a human operator and to display one or more of the plurality of parameters of at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; (Rust, see at least [0015-0017] wherein the system enables the onboard computer to request assistance from a human expert operating a human expert interface at a remote computer. The human expert can receive data or get access or sensor/sensor information from the vehicle’s onboard computer.)
one or more processors operatively coupled to the communication system and the user station; (Rust, see at least Fig. 1 and [0021-0025] wherein the onboard computer is coupled via a wireless connection to a human expert interface)
and at least one memory storing (i) centralized Al rules, and (ii) computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Rust, see at least [0111] wherein an artificial intelligence server may be used to determine proposals for successfully negotiating assistance-desired scenarios. Also see at least [0017] wherein an autonomous vehicle may encounter scenarios that violates traffic laws. Scenarios such as these require assistance from the remote assistance interface. ** all functional servers require memory, RAM to operate.)
receive, via the communication system, a signal from one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles indicating an exception condition requiring human input; (Rust, see at least [0014-0015] wherein the system functions to enable remote assistance and may request human expert operating based on the scenario instead of an artificially-intelligent expert. Also see [0016-0019] wherein assistance-desired scenarios may include situations where the vehicle is in a circumstance where it violates one or more traffic laws.)
verifying, by an execution of the centralized Al rules, that the exception condition cannot be handled automatically; (Rust, see at least [0017] the standard control and/or operational parameters for the autonomous vehicle do not allow for the autonomous vehicle to expressly violate traffic laws and further, the autonomous vehicle may not have internal protocols sufficient to navigate across a double yellow line)
identifying, by querying stored data utilizing data descriptive of the exception condition, one or more discrete remedial options; (Rust, see at least [0018-0019] wherein the human expert can propose different routes for traversing the assistance-desired scenario. The human expert can also take control of the vehicle and navigate the vehicle to traverse the assistance-desired scenario.)
display, via the user interface and in response to the verifying, at least one user input element representing the one or more discrete remedial options for selection by the human operator based on the exception condition, wherein each of the discrete remedial options comprises at least one pre-defined remedial instruction; (Rust, see at least [0018-0019] wherein a human expert is able to draw new lanes for navigating an avoidance scenario on their interface, and the new travel lanes will appear on the interface of the autonomous vehicle. This will allow for the autonomous vehicle to travel along the redrawn lines. The human expert can draw, generate, or select/propose a route for traversing the assistance-desired scenario. The remote assistance interface may provide one or more routing options. Also see at least [0027] wherein the human expert interface includes one or more output means and input means to respond to assistance requests.)
receive, via the user interface, a selection of at least one of the one or more discrete remedial options; and send, via the communication system, the at least one remedial instruction associated with the received selection to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to at least partly control operation thereof and eliminate the exception condition. (Rust, see at least [0018-0019] wherein the remote assistance interface may provide one or more routing options to the autonomous vehicle in which would reroute using redrawn boundary lines to assist the vehicle in negotiating the scenario.)
Rust does not explicitly disclose a communication system configured to communicate with a plurality of autonomous vehicles and receive a plurality of parameters related to operation of one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles,
However, Lockwood discloses a communication system configured to communicate with a plurality of autonomous vehicles and receive a plurality of parameters related to operation of one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, (Lockwood, see at least [0032-0033] wherein vehicles may be part of a fleet of vehicles in communication via a communications network with the teleoperations system. The vehicle sensors can communicate data related to operation of the vehicle(s) or any additional data to facilitate providing assistance to the vehicles.) the plurality of parameters comprising at least one of a position, a speed, a direction, an objective, a visual representation of the vehicle's surroundings, an audible representation of the vehicle's surroundings, an exception condition, and a priority of the exception condition; (Rust, see at least [0014-0015] wherein the system functions to enable remote assistance and may request human expert operating based on the scenario instead of an artificially-intelligent expert. Also see [0016-0019] wherein assistance-desired scenarios may include situations where the vehicle is in a circumstance where it violates one or more traffic laws.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rust to include the capability of communicating with a plurality of vehicles to receive a plurality of parameters as taught by Lockwood with reasonable expectation that this would allow for autonomous vehicles to request assistance when an assistance desired scenario is identified, and therefore would improve vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 2, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles comprises an onboard communication system and an onboard autonomous operation stack, the on board autonomous operation stack comprising: (see rejection above)
one or more processors operatively coupled to the onboard communication system and the onboard autonomous operation stack; (Rust, see at least Fig. 1, wherein the vehicle 110 is in communication with operator 120.)
and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Rust, see at least [0114] wherein a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions are preferably executed by computer-executable components integrated with a remote assistance platform)
receive, via the onboard communication system, an objective for at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; determine a set of objective instructions for the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to achieve the received objective; (Rust, see at least [0017-0019] wherein the autonomous vehicle may encounter an assistance-desired scenario, and the remote assistance interface may intervene via a request from the autonomous vehicle. The human expert at the remote assistance interface may generate/select a proposed route for traversing the scenario and transmit the proposed route to the autonomous vehicle for implementation.)
sense, via onboard sensors, a condition preventing at least one of the determined set of objective instructions from being carried out, and determine whether the condition is an exception condition that requires intervention by a human operator; send, via the onboard communication system, the exception condition to the user station. (Rust, see at least [0014-0015] wherein the system functions to enable remote assistance and may request human expert operating based on the scenario instead of an artificially-intelligent expert. Also see [0016-0019] wherein assistance-desired scenarios may include situations where the vehicle is in a circumstance where it violates one or more traffic laws. These scenarios are determined using cameras and sensor data.)
Regarding Claim 3, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 2, wherein: (see rejection above)
the signal received from one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is a first signal; (Rust, see at least [0014-0015] wherein the system functions to enable remote assistance and may request human expert operating based on the scenario instead of an artificially-intelligent expert. Also see [0016-0019] wherein assistance-desired scenarios may include situations where the vehicle is in a circumstance where it violates one or more traffic laws.)
and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: (Rust, see at least [0114] wherein a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions are preferably executed by computer-executable components integrated with a remote assistance platform)
receive a second signal from a second of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; (Rust, see at least [0043] wherein autonomous vehicles enable onboard computing systems to identify scenarios in which remote assistance is requested. ** multiple autonomous vehicles can be assisted.)
and determine, based on the exception condition priority, whether the discrete remedial options of the first exception condition or discrete remedial options of the second exception condition are displayed via the user interface. (Rust, see at least [0014-0015] wherein the system functions to enable remote assistance and may request human expert operating based on the scenario instead of an artificially-intelligent expert. Also see [0016-0019] wherein assistance-desired scenarios may include situations where the vehicle is in a circumstance where it violates one or more traffic laws. ** multiple autonomous vehicles can be assisted.)
Regarding Claim 4, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the user interface comprises a touch screen interface. (Rust, see at least [0027] “The human expert interface 120 preferably includes one or more output means, such as display means (e.g., a screen, a touch-sensitive display panel or screen, any known display, etc.) as well an input means (e.g., keyboard and mouse, steering wheel and pedals, tablet, microphone, any known input device, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 5, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 4, (see rejection above)
wherein the user interface further comprises at least one of a steering control, a braking control, and an acceleration control. (Rust, see at least [0027] “The human expert interface 120 preferably includes one or more output means, such as display means (e.g., a screen, a touch-sensitive display panel or screen, any known display, etc.) as well an input means (e.g., keyboard and mouse, steering wheel and pedals, tablet, microphone, any known input device, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 6, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 5, wherein: (see rejection above)
the user station further comprises a dead-man switch configured to deactivate the user interface when the dead-man switch is not activated; the discrete remedial option selection is a manual override option. (Rust, see at least [0098] wherein expert mode sessions can be terminated)
Regarding Claim 7, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 6, (see rejection above)
wherein the exception condition is related to an adverse visual condition. (Rust, see at least [0016] wherein scenarios in which remote assistance may be desired include scenarios where objects are blocking a path of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 8, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the received selection is sent to a second of the plurality of autonomous vehicles such that the second of the plurality of autonomous vehicles that encounters the exception condition automatically uses the instruction associated with the received selection to eliminate the exception condition. (Rust, see at least [0057] wherein if another autonomous vehicle is in or may soon be in or entering a assistance-desired scenario, the remote assistance platform may notify the vehicle to prepare for remote assistance. Also see [0061] wherein assistance data may be transmitted with the assistance request or it may be transmitted before an assistance request. If an autonomous vehicle is being made aware of an upcoming/potential scenario, the AI expert can provide preventative assistance in advance.)
Regarding Claim 9, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the user station is a first user station configured for use by a first human operator having a first set of skill and knowledge, and further comprising a second user station configured for use by a second human operator having a second set of skill and knowledge; and wherein the at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions cause the one or more processors to determine, based on the first and second set of skill and knowledge of the first and second human operator, to display on the first user station the one or more discrete remedial options. (Rust, see at least [0078-0079] wherein a request for assistance may be sent to multiple experts simultaneously. This allows for multiple experts to identify a collective response to a scenario or obtain a faster response to the assistance request. Proposed actions can be transmitted and may include selecting a proposed action from a list. *** multiple experts, would mean multiple user stations.)
Regarding Claim 10, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 1, further comprising a second user station and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: (see rejection above)
Lockwood further discloses receive a signal from the user station to switch control of at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to the second user station, (Lockwood, see at least [0107] wherein a teleoperations interface selects an action that would affect an entire vehicle fleet, the action could be transmitted to a second teleoperators interface that has elevated credentials for confirmation)
display an option on a user interface of the second user station to accept control of the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles on the second user station; (Lockwood, see at least [0107-0108] wherein a teleoperations interface selects an action that would affect an entire vehicle fleet, the action could be transmitted to a second teleoperators interface that has elevated credentials for confirmation)
receive a signal on the user interface of the second user station that control of the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is accepted, and send a signal to the user station that control of the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is confirmed switched to the second user station. (Lockwood, see at least [0104-0108] the action could be transmitted to a second teleoperators interface that has elevated credentials for confirmation, wherein the second teleoperator interface can confirm the guidance, and the vehicle can be controlled based on the signal. Also see Fig. 8)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rust to include the capability of performing remotely assisting multiple vehicles by obtaining a stream of sensor signals and transmitting requests to different operators as taught by Lockwood with reasonable expectation that this would allow for autonomous vehicles to request assistance when an assistance desired scenario is identified and allow for operator to remotely assist the vehicle and provide instructions to control the vehicle based on priority, and therefore would improve vehicle safety.
As per claim 11, the claim is directed towards a remote operator system for control of autonomous vehicles that recites similar limitations performed by the remote operator safety station of claim 1. However, Claim 11 contains an additional limitation “a plurality of autonomously controlled vehicles, each of the autonomously controlled vehicles having an onboard communication system, a steering control, a braking control, an acceleration control, a plurality of sensors, and an onboard autonomous operation stack coupled with each of the onboard communication system, the steering control, the braking control, the acceleration control, and the plurality of sensors;” which is disclosed in paragraphs [0030] and [0037-0045] of Rust in which discloses that a number of vehicles may utilize the assistance system and each vehicle can be autonomously controlled and includes a vehicle control system. The cited portions of Rust and Lockwood used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 12, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator system of claim 11, (see rejection above)
wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one of a visual camera, an infrared imaging device, a compass, an inclinometer, a Global Positioning System (GPS), an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an odometer, a speedometer, a microphone, ultrasonic sensor, radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, and a laser detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor. (Rust, see at least [0038] wherein multiple sensors can be used to incorporate information such as cameras, lidars, radars, and more)
Regarding Claim 13, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The remote operator safety station of claim 11, wherein the user station is a first user station and further comprising a second user station and wherein the second user station: (see rejection above)
Lockwood further discloses receives a signal from the first user station to switch control of at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to the second user station, (Lockwood, see at least [0107] wherein a teleoperations interface selects an action that would affect an entire vehicle fleet, the action could be transmitted to a second teleoperators interface that has elevated credentials for confirmation)
displays an option on a user interface of the second user station to accept control of the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles on the second user station; (Lockwood, see at least [0107-0108] wherein a teleoperations interface selects an action that would affect an entire vehicle fleet, the action could be transmitted to a second teleoperators interface that has elevated credentials for confirmation)
receives a signal on the user interface of the second user station that control of the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is accepted, and sends a signal to the first user station that control of the at least one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is confirmed switched to the second user station. (Lockwood, see at least [0104-0108] the action could be transmitted to a second teleoperators interface that has elevated credentials for confirmation, wherein the second teleoperator interface can confirm the guidance, and the vehicle can be controlled based on the signal. Also see Fig. 8)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rust to include the capability of performing remotely assisting multiple vehicles by obtaining a stream of sensor signals and transmitting requests to different operators as taught by Lockwood with reasonable expectation that this would allow for autonomous vehicles to request assistance when an assistance desired scenario is identified and allow for operator to remotely assist the vehicle and provide instructions to control the vehicle based on priority, and therefore would improve vehicle safety.
As per claim 14, the claim is directed towards a remote operator system of claim 11 that recites similar limitations performed by the remote operator safety station of claim 3. The cited portions of Rust and Lockwood used in the rejection of claim 3 teach the same system limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 3 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 15, Rust discloses A method of remotely operating a plurality of autonomous vehicles comprising: receiving, at a safety station having a processor and a memory and via a communication system coupled to the safety station, (Rust, see at least [0015-0017] wherein the system enables the onboard computer to request assistance from a human expert operating a human expert interface at a remote computer. The human expert can receive data or get access or sensor/sensor information from the vehicle’s onboard computer. Also see Fig. 1 and [0021-0025] wherein the onboard computer is coupled via a wireless connection to a human expert interface) a signal from one of a plurality of autonomous vehicles performing instructions to achieve an objective, (Rust, see at least [0014-0015] wherein the system functions to enable remote assistance and may request human expert operating based on the scenario instead of an artificially-intelligent expert. Also see [0016-0019] wherein assistance-desired scenarios may include situations where the vehicle is in a circumstance where it violates one or more traffic laws.)
the signal indicating an exception condition preventing the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles from performing an instruction and requiring human input to overcome the exception condition; (Rust, see at least [0017] the standard control and/or operational parameters for the autonomous vehicle do not allow for the autonomous vehicle to expressly violate traffic laws and further, the autonomous vehicle may not have internal protocols sufficient to navigate across a double yellow line)
displaying, via a user interface coupled to the safety station, one or more discrete remedial options for selection by a human operator based on the exception condition, wherein each of the discrete remedial options comprises at least one remedial instruction; (Rust, see at least [0018-0019] wherein a human expert is able to draw new lanes for navigating an avoidance scenario on their interface, and the new travel lanes will appear on the interface of the autonomous vehicle. This will allow for the autonomous vehicle to travel along the redrawn lines.)
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of at least one of the one or more discrete remedial options; and sending, via the communication system, the at least one remedial instruction associated with the received selection to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to at least partly control operation thereof; (Rust, see at least [0019] wherein the remote assistance interface may provide one or more routing options to the autonomous vehicle in which would reroute using redrawn boundary lines to assist the vehicle in negotiating the scenario.)
Rust does not explicitly disclose performing the at least one remedial instruction associated with the received selection by manipulating at least one of a steering control, a braking control, and an acceleration control on the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles.
However, Lockwood discloses performing the at least one remedial instruction associated with the received selection by manipulating at least one of a steering control, a braking control, and an acceleration control on the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles. (Lockwood, see at least [0116] wherein the guidance provided to the driverless vehicle by the teleoperator includes instructions to configure the driverless vehicle to perform an operation. Also see [0042] wherein the vehicle system includes a vehicle controller configured to receive vehicle control data and communicate with the drive system (steering system, braking system, propulsion system) to control operation of the vehicle. ** Rust also discloses providing guidance to an autonomous vehicle, however, Lockwood is relied upon for this limitation because it explicitly discloses that a vehicle is performing the operation based on instructions provided.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rust to include the capability of performing operation of an autonomous vehicle through provided instructions as taught by Lockwood with reasonable expectation that this would allow for autonomous vehicles to request assistance when an assistance desired scenario is identified and allow for a operator to remotely assist the vehicle and provide instructions to control the vehicle, and therefore would improve vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 16, Rust in view of Lockwood discloses The method of claim 1511, wherein the signal received from the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is a first signal of a first exception condition having a first priority, and further comprising: (see rejection above)
Lockwood further discloses receiving, at the safety station, a second signal from a second of a plurality of autonomous vehicles performing instructions to achieve an objective, (Lockwood, see at least [0024] and [0033-0035] wherein the teleoperator may interact with one or more vehicles, and more than one vehicle can request assistance requests.)
a second signal indicating a second exception condition preventing the second of the plurality of autonomous vehicles from performing an instruction and requiring human input to overcome the second exception condition, the second exception condition having a second priority; (Lockwood, see at least [0047-0048] wherein a teleoperator elevation requirement can be associated with the event, and higher teleoperator credentials are required to handle the request. Also see [0055] wherein a priority can be associated with an event.)
determining, based on a comparison of the first priority and the second priority, which of the discrete remedial options of the first exception condition and the discrete remedial options of the second exception condition are displayed via the user interface. (Lockwood, see at least [0055-0058] wherein based on priority, determination can be made on request for assistance and also in choosing a configuration of the user interface in presenting data associated with the request.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rust to include the capability of performing remotely assisting multiple vehicles by obtaining a stream of sensor signals and determine confidence levels and priority levels as taught by Lockwood with reasonable expectation that this would allow for autonomous vehicles to request assistance when an assistance desired scenario is identified and allow for operator to remotely assist the vehicle and provide instructions to control the vehicle based on priority, and therefore would improve vehicle safety.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10386835 B2– A method for controlling an autonomous vehicle using an external interface is disclosed. The method includes an external interface that is in operable communication with one or more control systems of the autonomous vehicle. The method allows an entity in proximity of an outside of the autonomous vehicle to interact with the external interface; receives from the entity one or more control inputs, and controls one or more operations of the autonomous vehicle based on the one or more control inputs.
US 20210018916– A method of exception handing for an autonomous vehicle (AV) includes identifying an exception situation; identifying relevant sensors for the exception situation; identifying relevant tools to the exception situation, the relevant tools usable by a tele-operator to resolve the exception situation; and presenting, on a display of the tele-operator, data from the relevant sensors and the relevant tools.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664