DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on February 5, 2026.
Claims 10 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 11 have been amended.
Claim 20 has been withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected.
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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim interpretation, Applicant provides comments on pages 8-9 of the Remarks. For further explanation of the claim interpretation, for example, the limitation in claim 1 of “analyze the sensor data to at least one of remotely monitor or control the autonomous vehicle” requires that sensor data is analyzed. However, there is no positively recited step of remotely monitoring or controlling the autonomous vehicle based on analyzing the sensor data. The other noted limitations have a similar issue.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. The independent claims are eligible in light of the vehicle is being controlled to move to a location as this feature is combined with the other limitations of the independent claims.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Ricci does not teach detecting an occurrence of a collision. Remarks at 13. The rejection was updated in light of Applicant’s amendments and Applicant should refer to the updated citations. Paragraph 0483 of Ricci discloses that the damage incident may be a vehicle accident/crash. Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Ricci and Harvey. Id. at 14-15. However, the rejection explains that the remote communications of Harvey provide convenience and efficiency. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language (claims 1-10 are representative) that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Intended Use
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
The following limitations include intended use limitations:
Claim 1: analyze the sensor data to at least one of remotely monitor or control the autonomous vehicle
Claim 1: transmit, via the communication interface, the one or more collision response commands to the autonomous vehicle control system to control of the operation of the autonomous vehicle by execution of the one or more collision response commands
Claim 4: transmit, via the communication interface, one or more driving commands to the autonomous vehicle control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the autonomous vehicle control system
Claim 5: wherein the one or more driving commands direct the autonomous vehicle control system to control the autonomous vehicle to at least one of drive to a specific destination location or to drive along a specific route
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Nonfunctional descriptive material is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. Any difference related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of the item) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
The following limitations include nonfunctional descriptive material:
Claim 2: transmit, via the communication interface, registration information to the autonomous vehicle control system in response to a registration request
Claim 3: wherein the registration information includes a vehicle-specific profile
Claim 7: wherein the collision response information includes at least one of an updated profile for the autonomous vehicle or an updated passenger profile for one or more passengers of the autonomous vehicle
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-9, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0309852 A1 and Harvey et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,049,505 B1.
Claim 1:
Ricci teaches:
receive, in real-time during vehicle operation, from an autonomous vehicle control system, sensor data associated with an autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle having an automated self-driving capability, and the sensor data received from one or more sensors during operation of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0010 (Notice is provided in real-time.); paragraph 0409 (Vehicle sensors detect or sense damage to a vehicle.); paragraph 0420; paragraph 0465; paragraph 0480 (Vehicle sensors that may operate in a continuous mode sense damage to a vehicle); paragraph 0494 (The vehicle has self-driving/autonomous capabilities)).
analyze the sensor data to at least one of remotely monitor or control the autonomous vehicle (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0409 (The sensor data may be used by a monitoring service); paragraph 0420 (The vehicle control system uses sensor data to determine whether a damage incident has occurred to the vehicle.); paragraph 0465; paragraph 0487 (The vehicle control system receives vehicle sensor data and determines whether damage to the vehicle has occurred.)).
receive a collision notification from the autonomous vehicle control system, the collision notification generated by the autonomous vehicle control system based on real-time analysis of the sensor data in response to detecting an occurrence of a collision involving the autonomous vehicle (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0420 (The vehicle control system uses sensor data to determine whether a damage incident has occurred to the vehicle.); paragraph 0483 (accident); paragraph 0487).
generate one or more collision response commands in response to the collision notification (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0409 (“Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle control system 204 may disable the vehicle and/or provide an alarm 2016, to include a visual alarm alert (e.g., flashing of headlights) and audio alarm alert (e.g., honking of horn)…”); paragraph 0422; paragraph 0494).
transmit, via the communication interface, the one or more collision response commands to the autonomous vehicle control system to control of the operation of the autonomous vehicle by execution of the one or more collision response commands, wherein the one or more collision response commands control the autonomous vehicle to move to a specific location via the autonomous vehicle control system (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0409 (“Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle control system 204 may disable the vehicle and/or provide an alarm 2016, to include a visual alarm alert (e.g., flashing of headlights) and audio alarm alert (e.g., honking of horn)…”); paragraph 0422; paragraph 0494 (“The action of vehicle control system 204 may comprise any measure to provide for the safety of the user(s), such as stopping the vehicle, driving the vehicle to a new location, such as a hospital….”)). Note that Harvey teaches that a vehicle is remotely controlled to move to another location. See Harvey, column 20, lines 21-29 and column 22, lines 3-8. The remote communication/control feature is disclosed below in Harvey.
Ricci does not explicitly teach, but Harvey, however, does teach:
at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle management computer system to: (see at least Harvey, column 19, line 61 through column 22, line 33 (In this embodiment, a remote processor/server communicates with and controls an autonomous vehicle.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Harvey’s method of remotely communicating with and controlling an autonomous vehicle with Ricci’s method of detecting collisions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing a convenient and efficient way to communicate with and control numerous vehicles from one location. Additionally, the method of Harvey provides a way for a third party such as an insurance provider, vehicle dealership, or vehicle manufacturer (see column 19, lines 63-66) to remotely communicate with and control a vehicle. This communication is convenient and efficient because it does not require separate actions by the vehicle driver and employees of the third parties.
Claim 4:
Ricci further teaches:
transmit, via the communication interface, one or more driving commands to the autonomous vehicle control system to direct the autonomous vehicle control system to control the autonomous vehicle (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0409 (“Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle control system 204 may disable the vehicle and/or provide an alarm 2016, to include a visual alarm alert (e.g., flashing of headlights) and audio alarm alert (e.g., honking of horn)…”); paragraph 0422).
Claim 5:
Ricci does not explicitly teach, but Harvey, however, does teach:
wherein the one or more driving commands direct the autonomous vehicle control system to control the autonomous vehicle to at least one of drive to a specific destination location or drive along a specific route (see at least Harvey, column 20, lines 21-29 (“causing or directing, via the one or more processors, the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle to drive itself (such as from a home or work address of the vehicle owner) to the repair shop (or vehicle dealership) at a designated time and/or place of a maintenance appointment to facilitate the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle functionality or technology in need of repair or maintenance being timely repaired or fixed such that vehicle or road safety may be enhanced.”); column 22, lines 3-8 (“The methods may further include causing or directing, via the one or more processors, the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle to drive from the vehicle dealership or repair shop to the home or work address of the vehicle owner after completion of the maintenance to facilitate maintenance or repair completion.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Harvey’s method of remotely directing a vehicle to drive itself to a repair shop, dealership, home, or work location with Ricci’s method of detecting collisions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing directing a vehicle to drive to a necessary location. For example, if a car is in need of a repair, it would be obvious to direct the vehicle to a repair shop.
Claim 6:
Ricci further teaches:
generate collision response information in response to the collision notification; and transmit, via the communication interface, the collision response information to the autonomous vehicle control system (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0409 (“Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle control system 204 may disable the vehicle and/or provide an alarm 2016, to include a visual alarm alert (e.g., flashing of headlights) and audio alarm alert (e.g., honking of horn)…”); paragraph 0422).
Claim 7:
Ricci further teaches:
wherein the collision response information includes at least one of an updated profile for the autonomous vehicle or an updated passenger profile for one or more passengers of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0409 (“Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle control system 204 may disable the vehicle and/or provide an alarm 2016, to include a visual alarm alert (e.g., flashing of headlights) and audio alarm alert (e.g., honking of horn)…”); paragraph 0422).
Claim 8:
Ricci further teaches:
receive a claim notification from the autonomous vehicle control system, the claim notification generated by the autonomous vehicle control system based on claim information generated in response to detecting the occurrence of the collision (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0422 (Based on detected damage to a vehicle, an insurance provider is contacted to begin the claim adjustment process.); paragraph 0429 (“For example, in the event of a vehicle damage incident due to a hit-and-run driver, comprehensive definition of the circumstances, prior to, during and sometimes after the incident are recorded, and may be communicated to authorities (e.g., police, insurance provider).”); paragraph 0465; paragraph 0494).
Claim 9:
Ricci further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors include a telematics device (see at least Ricci, paragraph 0578 (telematics)).
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0309852 A1; Harvey et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,049,505 B1; and Noh, U.S., Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0033963 A1.
Claim 2:
Ricci does not explicitly teach:
transmit, via the communication interface, registration information to the autonomous vehicle control system in response to a registration request.
Harvey, however, teaches:
Remotely communicating with an autonomous vehicle. See Harvey, column 19, line 61 through column 22, line 33. Note that the type of information transmitted is nonfunctional descriptive material. Therefore, this limitation is taught by Harvey.
Noh, however, teaches:
A server registers a vehicle for setting up the vehicle for remote control. See Noh, Figure 7, item S100; paragraph 0044 (“The server device 200 controls autonomous driving of the vehicle control device 300 included in the vehicle in cooperation with the infrastructure sensor device 100. Specifically, the server device 200 registers information on a remotely controlled vehicle that requests an autonomous driving service using the sensing information that is transmitted from the infrastructure sensor device 100 and then generate a driving control command corresponding to the driving route.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature with Ricci’s method of detecting collisions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing information that is needed for communicating with and controlling the autonomous vehicle.
Claim 3:
Ricci does not explicitly teach, but Noh, however, does teach:
wherein the registration information includes a vehicle-specific profile (see at least Noh, Figure 7, item S100; paragraph 0044 (“The server device 200 controls autonomous driving of the vehicle control device 300 included in the vehicle in cooperation with the infrastructure sensor device 100. Specifically, the server device 200 registers information on a remotely controlled vehicle that requests an autonomous driving service using the sensing information that is transmitted from the infrastructure sensor device 100 and then generate a driving control command corresponding to the driving route.”)). Note: The content of the information is nonfunctional descriptive material. Additionally, the registration information in Noa inherently includes vehicle-specific information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Noh’s vehicle registration with Ricci’s method of detecting collisions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing information that is needed for communicating with and controlling the autonomous vehicle.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Pierce et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0109828 A1. This reference teaches device-based incident detection and notification.
Jenkins et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0012429 A1. This reference teaches a method for crash determination.
Chainer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0068495 A1. This reference teaches detection of road surface defects.
Faust et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0102001 A1. This reference teaches collision detection.
Bodin, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0093291 A1. This reference teaches location-based intelligent remote vehicle function control.
Keohane et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,791,861 B2. This reference teaches autonomously servicing self-driving vehicles.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
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 ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)
Prosecution Insights