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 . Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6-8 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 2/2/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) filed on 2/2/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations are persuasive in view of amendments filed 2/2/26. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed on 2/2/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are partially persuasive in view of amendments filed 2/2/26. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections to claims 1, 2, and 4 are withdrawn.
Claim 5 still recites a mental process as reiterated below. Simply changing a control mode does not explicitly recite executing any physical controls, it simply recites the ability for the vehicle to change a mode of control. Amending to include material from claim 1 reciting active control of the vehicle movement may overcome the rejection. Applicant’s remarks, page 11, seems to inaccurately assert that claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1, however this is not how the claim is currently written.
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claim 5 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 102. filed on 2/2/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 2/2/26.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Prest et al. (US 2021/0053680) below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the control device" in numerous times throughout the claim and its dependents. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by Prest et al. (US 2021/0053680).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Prest discloses an autonomous navigation system including a mobile body control system configured to control a mobile body that is movable by unmanned driving, the mobile control system comprising (¶25 – UV including autonomously controlled ground vehicle corresponding to the recited mobile body):
a server apparatus including a first processor (¶95 – remote station includes a server that includes one or more computers corresponding to the recited server including a first processor); and
the mobile body including a second processor (¶54 – onboard logic implicitly discloses a second processor in the mobile body),
wherein the first processor is configured to acquire disturbance information regarding an external factor that affects communication between the mobile body and the control device; determine whether the disturbance information indicates the external factor is disrupting communication between the mobile body and the control device (¶54 – communications link failure is determined based on degradation of the quality of the communications link corresponding to the recited disturbance information regarding an external factor that affects communication between the mobile body and the control device),
wherein in response to determining that the external factor is not disrupting communication between the mobile body and the control device, the first processor controls the mobile body according to an external control mode by (i) generating a travel control signal for causing the mobile body to travel to a predetermined target position; and (ii) transmitting the travel control signal to the mobile body (¶40-42 – without experiencing a communication link failure, corresponding to the recited external factor not disrupting communications, generating and controlling the UV from the first processor), and
in response to determining that the external factor is disrupting communication between the mobile body and the control device, the first processor does not generate the travel control signal and changes control of the mobile body to an internal control mode that does not require communication with the control device (¶53-54 - in the event of a communications link failure corresponding to the recited the external factor is disrupting communication, use on-board logic to determine a new course of action in the absence of a communications link corresponding to the recited changing control of the mobile body to an internal control mode), and
the second processor is configured to in response to receiving the travel control signal, control the mobile body to travel to the predetermined target position in accordance with the travel control signal (¶40-42 – without experiencing a communication link failure, corresponding to the recited external factor not disrupting communications, generating and controlling the UV from the first processor), and
in response to not receiving the travel control signal for at least a predetermined period of time since receiving a previous travel control signal, the second processor controls the mobile body to move out of a travel lane and stop at an evacuation location (¶53-54 and ¶59-63 - sets a timer for a particular timeout, monitors the link for incoming data, and resets the timer whenever a data packet is properly received. If the timer elapses without data having been received since the timer was set, a timer-handling routine notifies another component of the processing subsystem (e.g., through a shared state variable) that the link has failed whereby the UV switches to onboard logic for navigating including return to a known safe state and cease operations where a safe state and ceasing operations for a vehicle on a road would include moving off the road before ceasing operations).
Regarding claim 2, Prest further discloses wherein, when the first processor determines that (¶52-55 – transition to link-free mode corresponding to the recited internal control via the second processor is only implemented on the vehicle with no other mode of operation due to communications link failure corresponding to the recited detected communication disruption which can be detected and transmitted from the control station corresponding to the recited first processor during external control mode which may be transmitted via another communications system to enable link-free mode corresponding to the recited change to internal control mode).
Regarding claim 4, Prest further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to compare a degree of influence indicating a magnitude of influence of the external factor on the control of the unmanned driving with a threshold value that is set in advance (¶52-59 – degradation of link quality is based on the amount of change from a baseline value in a metric corresponding to the recited magnitude of influence of the external factor and is compared to a particular value corresponding to the recited a threshold value that is set in advance), and
cause the mobile body to execute a second action when the degree of influence is no smaller than the threshold value, the second action being an action that is different from a first action that is executed when the degree of influence is below the threshold valu (¶52-59 – continue operating in normal remote control mode when the degradation is not smaller than the particular value corresponding to the recited degree of influence is not smaller than the threshold value, and when the communications link’s reliability falls below the particular value corresponding to the recited when the degree of influence is below the threshold value use on-board logic to determine a new course of action in the absence of a communications link corresponding to the recited first option).
Regarding claim 6, Prest further discloses wherein the second processor is further configured to: estimate the position of the mobile body based on information indicating a scheduled travel time to travel to predetermined positions on a travel path to the predetermined target position in response to not receiving the travel control signal for at least a predetermined period of time since receiving a previous travel control signal (¶59-64 - a Link Fail Test comprises a software subsystem which sets a timer for a particular timeout, monitors the link for incoming data, and resets the timer whenever a data packet is properly received. If the timer elapses without data having been received since the timer was set, a timer-handling routine notifies another component of the processing subsystem (e.g., through a shared state variable) that the link has failed corresponding to the recited not receiving the travel control signal for at least a predetermined period of time since receiving a previous travel control signal which may cause the vehicle to return to a known safe state or its point of origin or continue performance of an action or actions or mission which the vehicle was previously commanded to perform, which implicitly requires estimation of the position of the mobile body indicating scheduled travel time to predetermined positions on the travel path in order to continue operations based on an estimated position calculated via onboard logic corresponding to the recited second processor).
Regarding claim 7, Prest further discloses wherein the disturbance information includes at least one of interference information, weather information, and evaluation in formation, wherein the interference information indicates whether an interfering radio wave that interferes with communication between the mobile body and the and the control device is detected, the weather information indicates whether weather condition that will interfere with communication between the mobile body and the control device are occurring in an area through which the mobile body is traveling, and the evaluation information that indicates evaluated parameters of communication between the mobile body and the control device(¶52 – loss of communications link information corresponding to the recited disturbance information includes atmospheric conditions corresponding to the recited weather information, RF obstructing obstacles or terrain corresponding to the recited interference information, or extreme distances corresponding to the recited evaluation information. The “at least one of” claim element requires only one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Prest further discloses wherein the evaluated parameters include at least one of communication speed information, interruption information, response information, and power supply information, wherein the communication speed information indicates whether a data transfer speed between the mobile body and the control device is below a predetermined threshold speed, the interruption information indicates at least one of a time at which communication between the mobile body and the control device is interrupted, a duration of time that communication between the mobile body and the control device is interrupted, and a number of times that communication between the mobile body and the control device is interrupted within a predetermined time, the response information indicates that the mobile body has not received a response from the control device in response to a transmission from the mobile body, and the power supply that indicates the control device is not powered on (¶54-59 - degradation of link quality may be determined as a change from a baseline value in a metric such as throughput, the variance or standard deviation of throughput, packet latency, packet loss rate, or any other metric of communications link quality relative to a particular value corresponding to the recited predetermined threshold as well as a timer for monitoring the incoming data. The “at least one of” claim element requires only one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Altman (US 2021/0116907) discloses a system for teleoperating autonomous vehicles including an Engagement/Disengagement Unit 193, which may be responsible for reaching the decision whether to engage or disengage the remote operation or the tele-operation, or whether to allow the vehicle 110 to proceed without forced remotely-generated tele-operations or commands, or whether to over-ride the in-vehicle autonomous driving unit 120 of the vehicle 110, or whether to otherwise remotely cause, or trigger, or activate, or deactivate, or start, or stop, an Engagement process or a Disengagement process, relative to the primary vehicle 110. (¶16)
Tariq et al. (US 2023/0324925) discloses vehicle positioning control system including utilizing different positioning methods based on confidence level of received signal quality (¶44-48).
Liu et al. (US 2021/0221332) discloses an autonomous vehicle control system which utilizes redundant communications channels and assessed integrity of wireless communications in order to autonomously control a vehicle (Abstract).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights