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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 lines 1-2 and claim 14 line 2 read “the risk is evaluated is based on” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “the risk is evaluated based on” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “sensed information unit” is interpreted as sensor data of a scene or an observed situation in a scene consistent with examples from Figure 3 which show sensed information units as images and/or observations in images. Therefore, the limitation of “a sensed information unit that captures” is NOT interpreted under 112(f) as “captures” is being interpreted as another transitional phrase similar to “comprises” or “includes” (see MPEP 2111.03 for more information on transitional phrases) rather than a true function of the “sensed information unit”.
The phrase “transitioning a driving of the vehicle in response to the legally binding driving related command” is being interpreted as being any situation wherein the vehicle changes its driving state or driving trajectory in response to a legally binding driving related command. For example, this may include beginning a deceleration operation or stopping the vehicle in response to a legally binding command.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulutan US 11710352 B1 (hereinafter Ulutan) in view of Deshpande US 20200122773 A1 (hereinafter Deshpande).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ulutan discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (column 14 lines 28-44 discloses a memory storing instructions to perform the method) for non-verbal traffic-directed human communication, the non-transitory computer readable medium stores commands executable by a processing circuit for (column 14 lines 14-43 disclose a processor capable of executing instructions to perform the method):
obtaining a sensed information unit that captures a non-verbal communication attempt made by a person in relation to a vehicle (Figure 10 1002 discloses obtaining image data of a pedestrian and 1004 discloses processing said image data to obtain gestures indicating that the image data contains gestures made by the pedestrian); wherein the legally binding driving related command is selected of a stop command and a slow command (column 4 lines 17-43 discloses a pedestrian may hold a traffic sign such as a stop or slow sign that the vehicle can be controlled according to);
determining whether the non-verbal communication attempt conveys a legally binding driving related command, by processing, using a machine learning process, the sensed information unit (column 20 lines 27-62 disclose inputting image data into a machine learning module that determines gestures and further determines attributes of a pedestrian associated with the gesture such as a classification that the pedestrian is an authorized agent, e.g. a police officer; see also column 12 lines 1-6 for additional examples of authorized agents; examiner understands commands from authorized agents, such as police officers, would be "legally binding");
receiving environmental information other than the non-verbal communication attempt (column 11 lines 49-62 disclose determining path planning based on objects detected within an environment to generate a collision free path);
automatically generating one or more instructions at least one of a man machine interface controller and another controller of the vehicle (column 12 lines 30-48 disclose a system controller for controlling safety, emitter, and other systems according to a planned path; column 8 line 55 to column 9 line 5 discloses examples of utilizing lights, such as blinkers, and audio, such as horns, to indicate direction of travel and to communicate with pedestrians when implementing a trajectory), in accordance with the determination (Figure 10 1010 discloses authorized agent gestures are input into a planning for a vehicle; column 11 line 25 to column 12 line 6 detail more information on what this planning entails including details about trajectory planning and implementation); and
providing, based on the one or more instructions at least one of a human perceivable and machine-perceivable indication regarding the legally binding driving related command (column 8 line 55 to column 9 line 5 discloses examples of utilizing lights, such as blinkers, and audio, such as horns, to indicate direction of travel and to communicate with pedestrians when implementing a trajectory).
Ulutan does not teach evaluating, based on the environmental information, a risk associated with transitioning a driving of the vehicle in response to the legally binding driving related command; automatically generating one or more instructions executable by at least one of a man machine interface controller and another controller of the vehicle, in accordance with the evaluating; wherein the automatically generating of the one or more instructions comprises one or more instructions for issuing a delayed response to the legally binding driving related command when the risk exceeds a risk threshold.
Deshpande teaches receiving environmental information other than the non-verbal communication attempt (Figure 3A 202 discloses obtaining sensor data indicating presence of a following vehicle)
evaluating, based on the environmental information, a risk associated with transitioning a driving of the vehicle in response to the legally binding driving related command (Figure 3A 204 discloses determining a risk of collision from a following vehicle; see also exemplary Figure 6; examiner understands determining a risk of collision all the time allows for determining risk of collision in specific circumstances including when attempting to follow traffic commands); and
automatically generating one or more instructions executable by another controller of the vehicle, in accordance with the evaluating (Figures 3A-3B; see also Figure 2 regarding ECUs used to implement control in Figures 3A-3B); wherein the automatically generating of the one or more instructions comprises one or more instructions for issuing a delayed response to the legally binding driving related command when the risk exceeds a risk threshold (Figures 3A-3B discloses that when a risk of collision is above a threshold 220 and there is drivable space ahead of a subject vehicle 222, then automatic acceleration is performed to prevent collision wherein the method is restarted 206 and the vehicle can perform normal operation unless the tailgating issue is not solved; examiner understands this would effectively provide a delay to performing any stopping or slowing command by instead performing acceleration until risk of collision is below a threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ulutan to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande such that when the vehicle attempts to perform a stopping or slowing action according to Ulutan, a risk of collision can be determined wherein the vehicle instead accelerates to avoid collision while the risk of collision exists according to Deshpande. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a safe, immediate, and timely maneuver to avoid potential collision as taught by Deshpande (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the modified Ulutan reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Ulutan does not teach that the risk is evaluated based on a distance between the back of the vehicle and a following vehicle and a speed of the following vehicle.
Deshpande further teaches that the risk is evaluated based on a distance between the back of the vehicle and a following vehicle (paragraph 0026 discloses detecting the distance between vehicles; paragraph 0027 discloses determining risk of collision based on sensor data; see also Figure 5 for an illustration of this distance) and a speed of the following vehicle (paragraph 0026 discloses detecting following vehicle speed; paragraph 0027 discloses determining risk of collision based on sensor data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Ulutan to incorporate the further teachings of Deshpande such that when the vehicle attempts to perform a stopping or slowing action according to Ulutan, a risk of collision can be determined based on a following vehicle's speed and an inter-vehicle distance wherein the vehicle instead accelerates to avoid collision while the risk of collision exists according to Deshpande. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a safe, immediate, and timely maneuver to avoid potential collision as taught by Deshpande (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, the modified Ulutan reference teaches all of claims 4 and 14 as detailed above.
Ulutan does not teach that the risk is further evaluated based on at least one of a presence of an escape route.
Deshpande further teaches that the risk is further evaluated based on at least one of a presence of an escape route (paragraphs 0036-0038 disclose determining if there is a safe space for the vehicle to drive to avoid collision wherein actions to avoid collision can be performed based on determination of a safe space).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Ulutan to incorporate the further teachings of Deshpande such that when the vehicle attempts to perform a stopping or slowing action according to Ulutan, a risk of collision can be determined and an escape route can be determined to avoid the collision wherein the vehicle instead accelerates to avoid collision while the risk of collision exists and there is a safe escape route according to Deshpande. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a safe, immediate, and timely maneuver to avoid potential collision as taught by Deshpande (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the modified Ulutan reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above. Ulutan further teaches that the determining comprises identifying the person as being authorized to provide the legally binding driving related command (column 20 lines 27-62 disclose inputting image data into a machine learning module that determines gestures and further determines attributes of a pedestrian associated with the gesture such as a classification that the pedestrian is an authorized agent, e.g. a police officer); and identifying the legally binding driving related command (column 20 lines 27-62 discloses determining gestures of pedestrian; for one illustrative example, column 16 lines 7-26 detail a gesture interpretation of a traffic controller holding a sign indicating that the held sign should be followed).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the modified Ulutan reference teaches all of claims 9 and 19 as detailed above. Ulutan further teaches identifying the person to be a policeman (column 20 lines 27-62 disclose inputting image data into a machine learning module that determines gestures and further determines attributes of a pedestrian associated with the gesture such as a classification that the pedestrian is an authorized agent such as a police officer).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulutan as modified by Deshpande as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. US 20210012261 A1 (hereinafter Fukuda).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the modified Ulutan reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Ulutan does not teach that performing an autonomous driving operation is contingent on a human driver response to the automatically generated instructions.
Fukuda teaches that performing an autonomous driving operation is contingent on a human driver response to the automatically generated instructions (paragraphs 0074-0075 disclose, if a route is newly generated, providing a prompt to the driver to allow self-driving control on said route).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Ulutan to incorporate the teachings of Fukuda such that, upon determining a new control path in response to a pedestrian gesture as taught by Ulutan, the vehicle can prompt the driver using an HMI to authorize autonomous driving according to the newly generated path/route as taught by Fukuda. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent unintended control operations and ensure operator comfort with vehicle response.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 1/19/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections, 101 rejection, 112 rejection, and 103 rejection of record of record detailed in the Office Action dated 11/3/2025. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection under 103 is necessitated by the claim amendments in view of Ulutan and Deshpande (see above).
Specification amendments filed 1/19/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the title objections, specification objections, abstract objections, and drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 11/3/2025. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered. Examiner acknowledges that “Only arguments made by the Examiner that were explicitly accepted[ ]should be regarded as agreed upon[, and] all other arguments should be reviewed as contested” (page 9); however, no details regarding traversal have been provided for the examiner to reply to. Accordingly, examiner will examine the amendments filed 1/19/2026 prima facie.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akella et al. US 20220379889 A1 discloses decreasing the maximum deceleration of a preceding vehicle when inter-vehicle distance between the preceding vehicle and a following vehicle is below a threshold to prevent the preceding vehicle from being rear ended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669