DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sucan (US 2022/0073097).
Regarding claim 1, Sucan discloses a method (system and method for remote assistance in an autonomous vehicle; Sucan at title, abstract) comprising:
With a computing system of a vehicle (computing system 112; Sucan at 0057), autonomously controlling the vehicle based on a set of electable policies (vehicle autonomously controlled with respect to traveling environment along a selectable route; Sucan at 0029, 0101, 0104).
While autonomously controlling the vehicle based on the set of electable policies:
Determining satisfaction of a probability threshold of an impasse occurrence along a target vehicle path (impasse occurrence detected, triggering an assistance request; Sucan at 0026, 0053, 0102, 0112).
Based on the satisfaction of the probability threshold, providing a set of outputs to a remote assistance platform (wireless request transmitted to teleoperator along with proposed maneuver or route adjustment, along with sensed data; Sucan at 0026-0028, 0102).
Updating the set of electable policies to include an operator-approved policy determined with the remote assistance platform (teleoperator approves the proposed maneuver or route alteration, and the autonomous vehicle is controlled according to this added policy; Sucan at 0028).
Selecting a policy from the updated set of electable policies to autonomously control the vehicle (a vehicle control command from a plurality of vehicle control commands for maneuvering the vehicle along an updated trajectories or altered route is selected and implemented at the correct time and location during travel; Sucan at 0028, 0029).
Regarding claim 2, Sucan discloses updating the target path based on the set of inputs (newly proposed path accepted, target path on route updated; Sucan at 0028).
Regarding claim 3, Sucan discloses wherein the operator-approved policy comprises a set of waypoints (checkpoints on the path; Sucan at 0107).
Regarding claim 4, Sucan discloses wherein the set of outputs provided to the remote assistance platform comprises a set of estimated object parameters associated with an obstacle (obstacle location and recognition in an intersection scenario; Sucan at 0112), wherein the set of waypoints circumvents the obstacle and deviates from the target path (path navigation option includes circumventing the impasse; Sucan at Fig. 6B, 0104, 0107).
Regarding claim 5, Sucan discloses wherein the operator approved policy is determined based on a binary decision by a remote operator (approve/reject; Sucan at 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Sucan discloses wherein the operator approved policy is received at the onboard computing system via a wireless connection (remote teleoperation is at a physically separate location, and wireless transmits the policy to the vehicle computing system; Sucan at 0028, 0079, 0081)
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Sucan discloses method for remote assistance of an autonomous agent (system and method for remote assistance in an autonomous vehicle; Sucan at title, abstract), comprising:
Based on a first set of inputs, determining satisfaction of an event trigger associated with an impasse along a target path of the autonomous agent (impasse occurrence sensed in the path of an autonomous vehicle, triggering an assistance request; Sucan at 0026, 0053, 0102, 0112).
Based on the event trigger satisfaction, providing a set of outputs to a tele assist platform, the set of outputs comprising a proposed policy which deviates from the target path (proposed maneuver or route adjustment along with sensed data; Sucan at 0026-0028, 0102).
Determining a second set of inputs with the tele assist platform, the second set of inputs associated with a teleoperator approved policy (teleoperator approval of maneuvers or provided alternative/modified maneuvers given the received environmental data from the vehicle; Sucan at 0028).
Determining a set of electable policies comprising the teleoperator approved policy (vehicle controller receives the teleoperator approved, vehicle provided maneuver such as a u-turn on an alternative route; Sucan at 0028).
Updating the set of electable policies to include the teleoperator approved policies (updated sensed environmental data received by teleoperator can be used to modify previous policies; Sucan at 0031, 0033, 0036).
Autonomously controlling the vehicle based on the set of electable policies (new policies used to control autonomous vehicle; Sucan at 0026, 0028, 0033)
Regarding claim 8, Sucan discloses wherein autonomously controlling the vehicle occurs asynchronously with providing the set of outputs to the tele-assist platform (tele-operator can review the situation in near real-time; Sucan at 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Sucan discloses updating the target path based on the second set of inputs (newly proposed path accepted, target path on route updated; Sucan at 0028).
Regarding claim 10, Sucan discloses wherein the second set of inputs comprises a set of waypoints which circumvent an obstacle (checkpoints on a path to circumvent the obstacle (Sucan at 0104, 0107).
Regarding claim 11, Sucan discloses wherein the set of outputs provided to the tele-assist platform comprises a set of estimated object parameters associated with the obstacle (obstacle location and recognition in an intersection scenario; Sucan at 0112).
Regarding claim 12, Sucan discloses wherein the second set of inputs comprises a binary decision by a tele-operator (approve/reject; Sucan at 0028).
Regarding claim 13, Sucan discloses wherein the binary decision comprises a tele-operator approval of the proposed policy (approval; Sucan at 0028).
Regarding claim 15, Sucan discloses wherein the first set of inputs comprises a position estimate and a scenario (vehicle location via GPS, obstacle location and recognition in an intersection scenario; Sucan at 0045, 0112)
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Sucan discloses wherein the event trigger comprises a time threshold (stationary for 60 seconds; Sucan at 0115).
Regarding claim 17, Sucan discloses entering a holding pattern prior to determining the second set of inputs (vehicle will hold position until approval for updated path is received; Sucan at 0028, 0115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
3a. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucan, as applied above, and further in view of Chen (US 2020/0401135).
Regarding claim 14, Sucan is silent to wherein controlling the vehicle based on the set of electable policies comprises: based on the first set of inputs, selecting and implementing a policy which differs from the teleoperator approved policy1.
Chen, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle controller is configured to override policies from the server if it is determined by the vehicle controller that said policies would be ineffective or put the vehicle in danger (Chen at 0038).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to augment the autonomous vehicle policy update of Sucan with the override features of Chen. Doing so would account for applying only appropriate driving policies when the driving environment is changing.
4b. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucan, as applied above, and further in view of Brown (US 2022/0081005).
Regarding claim 18, Sucan discloses the stopped vehicle continuing being stopped until the approval is received for maneuvering on a path. Sucan is silent as to stopping the autonomous agent and waiting for tele-operator approval to proceed.
Brown, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches when encountering an impasse such as a road closure or construction zone, to pull the vehicle over to a safe area and then transmit the sensor data to the teleoperation server (Brown at 0107, 0108). Once the autonomous vehicle receives updated routing policy, the vehicle will be controlled (Brown at 0055-0056).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the base invention of Sucan with the vehicle control of Brown. Doing so would lessen the potential for more traffic congestion and/or increase the safety of the autonomous vehicle by removing it from an active lane of traffic while waiting for an appropriate solution to a detected road impasse.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s contention (see page 6 filed 23 March 2026) with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the claims has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the terminal disclaimer filed 23 March 2026. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s contention (see page 6, final paragraph filed 23 March 2026) with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 19 has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant has contended that Sucan does not discloses updating a set of electable policies from which the vehicle itself makes a selection, as claimed2. The examiner respectfully disagrees,
A policy, as broadest reasonably interpreted3, can encompass a maneuver, autonomous command, alternative route, safety rules, etc., or anything that would influence autonomous vehicle behavior.
As disclosed by Sucan, the current operating policies of the vehicle may be interrupted by a detected event at the vehicle such as a road impasse (Sucan at 0026), and a set of outputs in the way of sensed environmental data can be provided in a request for assistance, as well as proposed routes and/or maneuvers; Sucan at 0028-0030.
The vehicles stored policies may then be updated with new policies approved by the teleoperator, and each policy (e.g. steering, braking, turning, new routing, etc. ) selected and implemented as the vehicle continues its motion. Further, while implementing the new policies, subsequent updates to the policies may be made and selected at the vehicle (Sucan at 0026, 0033).
Thus, the examiner maintains the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action, which is incorporated herein.
6. Although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds/rationales and applicable prior art for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 13 April 2026
1 While a driver manually overriding or ignoring the instructions from the teleoperator and assuming control are well known options in autonomous vehicles and within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14, Sucan does not explicitly go into this subject matter.
2 Independent claims 7 and 19 contain no such recitation that the vehicle itself makes the selection; for purpose of argument, the Examiner will respond to the contention with respect to claim 1 as claims 7 and 19 differ in amendment scope.
3 When examining an application, personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Prosecution Insights