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 .
Status of Claims
This non-final action is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 01/09/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 12-13, and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-21 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 20180291575 A1) in view of Konrardy et al. (US 20220244736 A1), Kraimer et al. (US 20140343758 A1), Golden (US RE43891 E), and Yang (WO 2020010601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roe discloses a computer-implemented method for a remote entity disabling a vehicle via wireless communication and instruction authentication (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] stating a computer-implemented method for stopping a vehicle by wirelessly receiving and recognizing control instructions as an authorized police code), comprising:
receiving, at one or more processors in the vehicle, a communication from the remote entity (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued and pursuing vehicle have intercommunication);
analyzing, at the one or more processors of the vehicle, the communication to determine that the communication comprises instructions to disable the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives control instructions from the pursuing vehicle);
and authenticating, at the one or more processors of the vehicle, the instructions by determining that the remote entity is authorized to disable the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives and recognizes control instructions as an authorized police code).
Roe does not teach wherein the communication includes information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate.
However, Konrardy discloses the communication further comprises information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate (see at least paragraphs [0092] and [0113] where the autonomous vehicle operations are assessed for risk based on the autonomous features and components of the autonomous vehicle, which may be shut off entirely if they are found deficient).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the component risk assessment of Konrardy into the autonomous vehicle disabling function of Roe with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps disable the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicle is necessary, wherein operating the vehicle poses a considerable risk based on the components used as detailed in Konrardy.
While Roe teaches controlling the autonomous pursued vehicle to shift into neutral (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009]), the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not explicitly teach causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication by ceasing to supply power to a component of the engine of the vehicle.
Kraimer teaches causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication (see at least paragraphs [0083-0084] and [0094] where the signals are used to disable or shut down the truck).
However, it is noted that while both are directed toward authorizing a disablement of a vehicle, Roe recites in ¶ [0008] and [0027] that, in a case that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, remote disablement by disabling the power supply to the engine is specifically avoided, and so teaches away from an obvious combination with Kraimer alone.
Therefore, Golden is relied to teach ceasing to supply power to a component of the engine of an autonomous vehicle (see at least column 4, lines 15-27 and claims 11, 52, and 55).
Golden demonstrates that there is precedent in the art for remotely disabling an autonomous vehicle by ceasing its power supply. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the option to cease power to an autonomous vehicle instead of strictly affecting the accelerator. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote disabling authentication of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy, specifically exchanging Roe’s autonomous accelerator restriction for the power supply disabling of Golden with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles safer and prevent them from posing harm to people, especially in a scenario where unauthorized users are attempting to illegitimately take control of the vehicle (see at least column 4, lines 15-27 and claims 11, 52, and 55 of Golden).
The combination of Roe, Konrardy, Kraimer, and Golden does not explicitly disclose the communication is sent by the remote entity in response to a determination by one or more processors of the remote entity that the vehicle is on a course to enter a high-vehicle-traffic area.
However, Yang suggests the communication is sent by the remote entity in response to a determination by one or more processors of the remote entity that the vehicle is on a course to enter a high-vehicle-traffic area (see at least abstract and pages 1-2, starting with “According to the vehicle-mounted electronic fence…”; page 3 starting with “The control end sets a prohibited area…”; and page 4 starting with “Application scenario one” of the machine translation disclosing a means of remotely stopping and turning off a vehicle as it travels in or approaches prohibited areas, including densely populated areas to avoid traffic jams).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the traffic jam avoidance of Yang into the combination of Roe, Konrardy, Kraimer, and Golden with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward using and directing vehicles, with Roe having an emphasis on detecting and stopping vehicles that violate traffic laws. This helps prevent a passenger from being in or disrupted by an accident that would cause congested traffic areas.
Regarding claim 12, Roe discloses a computer system configured for a remote entity to disable a vehicle via wireless communication and instruction authentication (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] stating a computer-implemented method for stopping a vehicle by wirelessly receiving and recognizing control instructions as an authorized police code), the computer system comprising one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors (see at least paragraphs [0028-0030] stating a computer-implemented method for stopping a vehicle with various components) configured to:
receive a communication from the remote entity (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued and pursuing vehicle have intercommunication);
analyze the communication to determine that the communication comprises instructions to disable the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives control instructions from the pursuing vehicle);
and authenticate the instructions by determining that the remote entity is authorized to disable the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives and recognizes control instructions as an authorized police code).
Roe does not teach wherein the communication includes information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate.
However, Konrardy discloses the communication further comprises information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate (see at least paragraphs [0092] and [0113] where the autonomous vehicle operations are assessed for risk based on the autonomous features and components of the autonomous vehicle, which may be shut off entirely if they are found deficient).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the component risk assessment of Konrardy into the autonomous vehicle disabling function of Roe with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps disable the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicle is necessary, wherein operating the vehicle poses a considerable risk based on the components used as detailed in Konrardy.
While Roe teaches controlling the autonomous pursued vehicle to shift into neutral (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009]), the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not explicitly teach causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication by ceasing to supply power to a component of the engine of the vehicle.
Kraimer teaches causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication (see at least paragraphs [0083-0084] and [0094] where the signals are used to disable or shut down the truck).
However, it is noted that while both are directed toward authorizing a disablement of a vehicle, Roe recites in ¶ [0008] and [0027] that, in a case that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, remote disablement by disabling the power supply to the engine is specifically avoided, and so teaches away from an obvious combination with Kraimer alone.
Therefore, Golden is relied to teach ceasing to supply power to a component of the engine of an autonomous vehicle (see at least column 4, lines 15-27 and claims 11, 52, and 55).
Golden demonstrates that there is precedent in the art for remotely disabling an autonomous vehicle by ceasing its power supply. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the option to cease power to an autonomous vehicle instead of strictly affecting the accelerator. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote disabling authentication of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy, specifically exchanging Roe’s autonomous accelerator restriction for the power supply disabling of Golden with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles safer and prevent them from posing harm to people, especially in a scenario where unauthorized users are attempting to illegitimately take control of the vehicle (see at least column 4, lines 15-27 and claims 11, 52, and 55 of Golden).
The combination of Roe, Konrardy, Kraimer, and Golden does not explicitly disclose the communication is sent by the remote entity in response to a determination by one or more processors of the remote entity that the vehicle is on a course to enter a high-vehicle-traffic area.
However, Yang suggests the communication is sent by the remote entity in response to a determination by one or more processors of the remote entity that the vehicle is on a course to enter a high-vehicle-traffic area (see at least abstract and pages 1-2, starting with “According to the vehicle-mounted electronic fence…”; page 3 starting with “The control end sets a prohibited area…”; and page 4 starting with “Application scenario one” of the machine translation disclosing a means of remotely stopping and turning off a vehicle as it travels in or approaches prohibited areas, including densely populated areas to avoid traffic jams).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the traffic jam avoidance of Yang into the combination of Roe, Konrardy, Kraimer, and Golden with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward using and directing vehicles, with Roe having an emphasis on detecting and stopping vehicles that violate traffic laws. This helps prevent a passenger from being in or disrupted by an accident that would cause congested traffic areas.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Roe discloses the remote entity comprises a law enforcement agency (see at least abstract and paragraphs [0008-0009]);
and the communication further comprises information indicating that the vehicle has not complied with a government regulation (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives and recognizes control instructions as an authorized police code).
Regarding claim 4, Roe does not disclose the remote entity comprises an automobile manufacturer or an automobile parts manufacturer.
However, Konrardy teaches the remote entity comprises an automobile manufacturer or an automobile parts manufacturer (see at least paragraph [0059] disclosing a remote server potentially operated by a vehicle manufacturer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the component risk assessment of Konrardy into the autonomous vehicle disabling function of Roe with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps disable the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicle is necessary, wherein operating the vehicle poses a considerable risk based on the components used as detailed in Konrardy.
Regarding claim 5, Roe does not explicitly disclose the remote entity comprises an automobile manufacturer or an automobile parts manufacturer;
and the method further comprises:
with one or more processors of the remote entity:
(i) determining that the vehicle has been modified to include a faulty component,
and (ii) communicating the determination to an insurance agency to allow the insurance agency to modify or cancel an insurance policy of the vehicle.
However, Konrardy teaches the remote entity comprises the automobile manufacturer or the automobile parts manufacturer (see at least paragraph [0059] disclosing a remote server potentially operated by a vehicle manufacturer);
and the method further comprises:
with one or more processors of the remote entity:
(i) determining that the vehicle has been modified to include a faulty component (see at least paragraph [0253] where the serve determines if the fault was caused by defects in the vehicle or its components),
and (ii) communicating the determination to an insurance agency to allow the insurance agency to modify or cancel an insurance policy of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0039-0041], [0092], and [0253] where insurance policy and/or premiums are set or changed based on determining a risk assessment, fault, and/or components of an autonomous vehicle, and can be controlled to disable the vehicle).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the insurance policy consideration of Konrardy into the autonomous vehicle disabling function of Roe with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps monitor the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where unapproved modifications have been made that would void an insurance policy, as detailed in Konrardy.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not explicitly disclose the causing of the vehicle to become disabled further comprises:
applying brakes of the vehicle.
However, Kraimer teaches causing of the vehicle to become disabled comprises:
and applying brakes of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0092-0094] for applying brakes to stop the truck).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote braking features of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles disable quicker and more completely, thus preventing the pursued vehicle from performing potential intermediary actions while in a powered state.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not explicitly disclose the causing of the vehicle to become disabled further comprises:
preventing the vehicle from operating in a manual mode;
and locking at least one door of the vehicle from an inside of the vehicle and an outside of the vehicle.
However, Kraimer teaches causing of the vehicle to become disabled further comprises:
preventing the vehicle from operating in a manual mode (see at least paragraph [0094] disclosing the power unit being deactivated; the Examiner interprets the ability to shut down the truck such that it does not provide power to the truck as a way of preventing the truck from being operated manually).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote power disabling features of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles disable quicker and more completely, thus preventing the pursued vehicle from performing potential intermediary actions while in a powered state.
The combination of Roe, Konrardy, and Kraimer does not disclose locking at least one door of the vehicle from an inside of the vehicle and an outside of the vehicle.
However, Golden teaches locking at least one door of the vehicle from an inside of the vehicle and an outside of the vehicle (see at least column 11, lines 1-22 where securing an autonomous vehicle includes shutting it down and locking it).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the locking mechanism of Golden into the combination of Roe, Konrardy, and Kraimer with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to the operation and control of autonomous vehicles. This would help the secure the vehicle once it has been disabled and prevent it from being used.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not explicitly disclose the causing of the vehicle to become disabled further comprises:
locking at least one door of the vehicle from an outside of the vehicle;
and applying brakes of the vehicle.
However, Kraimer teaches causing of the vehicle to become disabled comprises:
and applying brakes of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0092-0094] for applying brakes to stop the truck).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote braking features of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles disable quicker and more completely, thus preventing the pursued vehicle from performing potential intermediary actions while in a powered state.
The combination of Roe, Konrardy, and Kraimer does not disclose locking at least one door of the vehicle from an outside of the vehicle.
However, Golden teaches locking at least one door of the vehicle from an outside of the vehicle (see at least column 11, lines 1-22 where securing an autonomous vehicle includes shutting it down and locking it).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the locking mechanism of Golden into the combination of Roe, Konrardy, and Kraimer with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to the operation and control of autonomous vehicles. This would help the secure the vehicle once it has been disabled and prevent it from being used.
Regarding claim 19, Roe discloses a computer system for a remote entity disabling a vehicle via wireless communication and instruction authentication (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] stating a computer-implemented method for stopping a vehicle by wirelessly receiving and recognizing control instructions as an authorized police code), the computer system comprising:
one or more processors (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] stating a computer-implemented method for stopping a vehicle);
and one or more non-transitory memories (see at least ¶ [0024] disclosing pre-programmed codes stored on the target vehicle’s computers), the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] stating a computer-implemented method for stopping a vehicle) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a communication from the remote entity (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued and pursuing vehicle have intercommunication);
analyze the communication to determine that the communication comprises instructions to disable the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives control instructions from the pursuing vehicle);
and authenticate the instructions by determining that the remote entity is authorized to disable the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued vehicle receives and recognizes control instructions as an authorized police code).
Roe does not teach wherein the communication includes information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate.
However, Konrardy discloses the communication further comprises information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate (see at least paragraphs [0092] and [0113] where the autonomous vehicle operations are assessed for risk based on the autonomous features and components of the autonomous vehicle, which may be shut off entirely if they are found deficient).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the component risk assessment of Konrardy into the autonomous vehicle disabling function of Roe with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps disable the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicle is necessary, wherein operating the vehicle poses a considerable risk based on the components used as detailed in Konrardy.
While Roe teaches controlling the autonomous pursued vehicle to shift into neutral (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009]), the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not explicitly teach causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication by ceasing to supply power to a component of the engine of the vehicle.
Kraimer teaches causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication (see at least paragraphs [0083-0084] and [0094] where the signals are used to disable or shut down the truck).
However, it is noted that while both are directed toward authorizing a disablement of a vehicle, Roe recites in ¶ [0008] and [0027] that, in a case that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, remote disablement by disabling the power supply to the engine is specifically avoided, and so teaches away from an obvious combination with Kraimer alone.
Therefore, Golden is relied to teach ceasing to supply power to a component of the engine of an autonomous vehicle (see at least column 4, lines 15-27 and claims 11, 52, and 55).
Golden demonstrates that there is precedent in the art for remotely disabling an autonomous vehicle by ceasing its power supply. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the option to cease power to an autonomous vehicle instead of strictly affecting the accelerator. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote disabling authentication of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy, specifically exchanging Roe’s autonomous accelerator restriction for the power supply disabling of Golden with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles safer and prevent them from posing harm to people, especially in a scenario where unauthorized users are attempting to illegitimately take control of the vehicle (see at least column 4, lines 15-27 and claims 11, 52, and 55 of Golden).
The combination of Roe, Konrardy, Kraimer, and Golden does not explicitly disclose the communication is sent by the remote entity in response to a determination by one or more processors of the remote entity that the vehicle is on a course to enter a high-vehicle-traffic area.
However, Yang suggests the communication is sent by the remote entity in response to a determination by one or more processors of the remote entity that the vehicle is on a course to enter a high-vehicle-traffic area (see at least abstract and pages 1-2, starting with “According to the vehicle-mounted electronic fence…”; page 3 starting with “The control end sets a prohibited area…”; and page 4 starting with “Application scenario one” of the machine translation disclosing a means of remotely stopping and turning off a vehicle as it travels in or approaches prohibited areas, including densely populated areas to avoid traffic jams).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the traffic jam avoidance of Yang into the combination of Roe, Konrardy, Kraimer, and Golden with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward using and directing vehicles, with Roe having an emphasis on detecting and stopping vehicles that violate traffic laws. This helps prevent a passenger from being in or disrupted by an accident that would cause congested traffic areas.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Roe and Konrardy does not disclose the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to cause the vehicle to become disabled by applying brakes of the vehicle.
However, Kraimer teaches causing of the vehicle to become disabled comprises:
and applying brakes of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0092-0094] for applying brakes to stop the truck).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the remote braking features of Kraimer and apply them to the combination of Roe and Konrardy with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward the remote control of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or automated transport vehicles. This could help make the autonomous vehicles disable quicker and more completely, thus preventing the pursued vehicle from performing potential intermediary actions while in a powered state.
Regarding claim 21, Roe discloses the remote entity is not physically connected to the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0008-0009] where the autonomous pursued and pursuing vehicle have remote, wireless intercommunication).
Claims 2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al., in view of Konrardy et al., Kraimer et al., Golden, and Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and in further view of Konrardy et al. (US 11441916 B1). For sake of clarity, Konrardy et al. (US 20220244736 A1) will be referred below as Konrardy (1) and Konrardy et al. (US 11441916 B1) will be referred below as Konrardy (2).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combination of Roe, Konrardy (1), Kraimer, Golden, and Yang does not disclose the remote entity comprises an infrastructure component having the one or more processors of the remote entity;
the one or more processors of the remote entity determine that the vehicle is going to collide with the infrastructure component;
and the communication further comprises time and distance stopping information required to stop the vehicle before the vehicle collides with the infrastructure component.
However, Konrardy (2) teaches the remote entity comprises an infrastructure component having one or more processors of the remote entity (see at least column 12, lines 54-67; column 13, lines 1-16; and columns 20-21, lines 42-67 and 1-2 describing infrastructure components communicatively connected to processors and back-end components including remote servers);
the one or more processors of the remote entity determine that the vehicle is going to collide with the infrastructure component (see at least column 34, lines 40-49; and columns 37-38, lines 45-67 and 1-10 disclosing the vehicle and infrastructure system collecting and tracking data related to near collisions – while the components process data connected to the autonomous vehicle and remote servers with the capacity to communicate the relevant data);
and the communication further comprises time and distance stopping information required to stop the vehicle before the vehicle collides with the infrastructure component (see at least column 26, lines 36-55; columns 29-30, lines 55-67 and 1-12; column 30 and lines 50-65; and columns 37-38, lines 45-67 and 1-10 that disclose the systems in place that time and distance an autonomous vehicle to stop it before it collides with another vehicle or object).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the infrastructural response system of Konrardy (2) into the combination of Roe, Konrardy (1), Kraimer, Golden, and Yang with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps disable the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicle is necessary, wherein the autonomous vehicle approaches a piece of infrastructure unsafely as detailed in Konrardy (2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Roe, Konrardy (1), Kraimer, Golden, and Yang discloses determining, by one or more processors of the remote entity, that the vehicle is on course to enter either an accident area or a construction area;
and the instructions to disable the vehicle comprise instructions to disable the vehicle to prevent the vehicle from entering either the accident area or the construction area.
However, Konrardy teaches determining, by one or more processors of the remote entity, that the vehicle is on course to enter either an accident area or a construction area (see at least columns 37-38, lines 45-67 and 1-10; and columns 52-53, lines 52-67 and 1-9 describing means for a system that is aware of potential construction or accident zones and warns an autonomous vehicle of them);
and the instructions to disable the vehicle comprise instructions to disable the vehicle to prevent the vehicle from entering either the accident area or the construction area (see at least column 30 and lines 50-65; columns 37-38, lines 45-67 and 1-10; and columns 52-53, lines 52-67 and 1-9 describing means for a system that is aware of potential construction or accident zones, warns an autonomous vehicle of them, and has the capability to stop the autonomous vehicle should that be necessary).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the construction or accident warning system of Konrardy (2) into the combination of Roe, Konrardy (1), Kraimer, Golden, and Yang with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the control of autonomous vehicles. This helps disable the vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicle is necessary, wherein the autonomous vehicle approaches a piece of infrastructure unsafely as detailed in Konrardy (2).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al., in view of Konrardy et al., Kraimer et al., Golden, and Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and in further view of Joao (US 20050248444 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Roe, Konrardy (1), Kraimer, Golden, and Yang does not disclose determining, at the one or more processors of the vehicle, that other vehicles should be shut down based upon the analysis of the communication;
and communicating, via the one or more processors of the vehicle, the determination that other vehicles should be shut down to at least one other vehicle.
However, Joao teaches determining, at the one or more processors of the vehicle, that other vehicles should be shut down based upon the analysis of the communication (see at least paragraphs [0065], [0094], [0235], [0249], and [0318-0320] that describe and apparatus based vehicle monitoring and control system that is communicatively connected to a service agency overseeing multiple vehicles, wherein the agency has authority to disable multiple serviced vehicles by affecting power supply);
and communicating, via the one or more processors of the vehicle, the determination that other vehicles should be shut down to at least one other vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0065], [0094], [0235], [0249], and [0318-0320] that describe and apparatus-based vehicle monitoring and control system that communicates multiple vehicles’ statuses to a service agency that has authority to disable multiple serviced vehicles by affecting power supply).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the multiple vehicle disabling capability of Joao into the combination of Roe, Konrardy (1), Kraimer, Golden, and Yang with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to disabling vehicles by disrupting their available power supply. This helps disable multiple vehicle in a reasonable scenario where disabling the autonomous vehicles is necessary, wherein one or more vehicles are stolen or operated without authorization as detailed in Joao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669