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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/27/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The claim objection is withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims regarding controlling the monitored motor vehicle to navigate is a practical application.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments that Xu does not teach the identities of cell sites is persuasive. Examiner has reapplied the prior art in view of Ahmed (US 20210231447 A1).
Applicant argues that a cell site congestion factor is not taught in claim 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the list of items (uplink channel bandwidth, downlink channel bandwidth, and cell site congestion factor) are given the condition, comprising two or more of. Therefore only two of the items in the list need to be taught to read on the limitation.
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 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, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20220196425 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Ahmed (US 20210231447 A1), Joseph (US 20180180583 A1, cited in a previous office action), and Nishizaki (US 20200413329 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method of augmenting control of a motor vehicle based on driving conditions and conditions of a radio access network (RAN), comprising (Paragraphs 0107-0110, 0114, 0123, 0136; “controller 900 enables or disables a driving assistance feature based on the data requirement and the wireless performance data”);
analyzing historical information about motor vehicles driving over roads by an application executing on a computer system (Paragraph 0040, 0080-0081, Fig. 5; “based on traffic data (e.g. by the traffic processing engine 510), such as incident data 502, and vehicle probe data 504”);
uplink channel bandwidth of the cell sites, and downlink channel bandwidth of the cell sites (Paragraph 0041; “the communications interface 102 may measure a current or historical speed (download/upload), bandwidth (download/upload)”);
analyzing conditions of the RAN of the monitored motor vehicle by the application (Paragraphs 0080-0081; “wireless network performance scoring (based on wireless performance data, such as 5G coverage data 506) may be performed (e.g. by the wireless network performance processing engine 512) in addition to scoring based on traffic data (e.g. by the traffic processing engine 510), such as incident data 502, and vehicle probe data 504”);
based on a predefined destination of the monitored motor vehicle, based on analyzing the historical information about motor vehicles driving over roads, based on analyzing current environmental conditions, and based on analyzing conditions of the RAN, determining a preferred driving route for the monitored motor vehicle by the application (Paragraphs 0080-0081, 0105-0106, Fig. 5; “The incident data 502, vehicle probe data 504, and wireless performance data 506 may be updated. The updates may allow for dynamic route planning based on current conditions”);
wherein the preferred driving route maintains RAN coverage for the monitored motor vehicle throughout the preferred driving route (Xu - Paragraphs 0036, 0058) “where both 3G and 5G networks are available for all or nearly all of the length of a path segment, the path segment may be scored based on the 5G network (e.g. given a score of 5)”
controlling the monitored motor vehicle to navigate along the preferred driving route by transmitting by the application via the RAN to the monitored motor vehicle, information about the preferred driving route (Xu - Paragraphs 0060-0061, 0063) “The route may contain path segments with wireless network performance data that enable autonomous driving features along the route”
Xu does not teach the historical information comprises identities of cell sites that telematics units in the motor vehicles wirelessly connect to.
However, Ahmed teaches the historical information comprises identities of cell sites that telematics units in the motor vehicles wirelessly connect to (Ahmed - Paragraphs 0064-0066) “a list of radio access point identities (IDs)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with historical information comprising identities of cell sites of Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Xu and Ahmed both discuss controlling a remote vehicle through cell sites. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the availability, reliability, and safety of the remote controlled vehicle (Ahmed – Paragraph 0010).
Xu does not specifically state analyzing current environmental conditions experienced by a monitored motor vehicle by the application; wherein the current environmental conditions are retrieved from temperature monitor stations, from humidity monitor stations, barometric pressure monitor stations, and from weather forecast feeds.
However, Joseph teaches analyzing current environmental conditions experienced by a monitored motor vehicle by the application (Paragraph 0060; “data from the scientific instrumentation inside the van (such as mass spectrometers, gas or liquid chromatometers) may be integrated with a server or laptop for display, interpretation, and/or analysis”);
wherein the current environmental conditions are retrieved from temperature monitor stations, from humidity monitor stations, barometric pressure monitor stations, and from weather forecast feeds (Paragraph 0060; “On the top of the vehicle may be attached a GPS locator 122 and a weather station 124, which measures, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, pressure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with analyzing current environmental conditions of Joseph with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that capturing environmental and weather conditions allows a vehicle to determine routes to take or avoid. During weather conditions such as rain or snow, it is advantageous to take routes that bypass these areas. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Joseph as this achieves a better driving experience. As stated in Xu, “The user preference may specify that driving assistance features be enabled in in certain conditions. For example, the preference may indicate that autonomous driving features should be enable when traffic/congestion or a weather event (storms, rain, snow, high winds) are present” (Paragraph 0114).
Xu does not specifically state within a predetermined radius.
However, Nishizaki teaches within a predetermined radius (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0033; “The candidate AP selection unit 23a selects, as the candidate access point 10, the access point 10 included in a circle having a predetermined radius around the position of the vehicle V”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with a predetermined radius for analyzing conditions of a radio access network of Nishizaki with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle only has a certain communication radius for radio waves. It is only necessary to analyze access points that the vehicle can connect to. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Nishizaki as this achieves successful radio communication. As stated in Nishizaki, “the candidate AP selection unit 23a selects, as the candidate access point 10, the access point 10 from which the in-vehicle communication device 30 at the position of the vehicle V can receive radio waves” (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses the application transmits information about the preferred driving route to a telematics unit of the monitored motor vehicle (Paragraphs 0085, 0107, 0136).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses based on analyzing the historical information about motor vehicles driving over roads and based on analyzing current environmental conditions (Paragraphs 0080-0081, 0105-0106, Fig. 5; “The incident data 502, vehicle probe data 504, and wireless performance data 506 may be updated. The updates may allow for dynamic route planning based on current conditions”);
determining a vehicle control parameter by the application and transmitting the vehicle control parameter by the application to the monitored motor vehicle (Paragraphs 0121-0124; “The autonomous vehicle may steer, brake, or accelerate the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle in order, and may respond to routes including path segments received from geographic database 123 and the server 125 and driving commands or navigation commands”).
Regarding claim 21, Xu discloses based on analyzing the historical information about motor vehicles driving over roads and based on analyzing the current environmental conditions (Paragraphs 0080-0081, 0105-0106, 0117, Fig. 5; “The incident data 502, vehicle probe data 504, and wireless performance data 506 may be updated. The updates may allow for dynamic route planning based on current conditions”);
determining an operating parameter change for the monitored motor vehicle by the application; and transmitting the operating parameter change by the application to the monitored motor vehicle (Paragraphs 0121-0124; “The autonomous vehicle may steer, brake, or accelerate the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle in order, and may respond to routes including path segments received from geographic database 123 and the server 125 and driving commands or navigation commands”);
via the RAN (Paragraphs 0042, 0085, 0136);
wherein the control of the monitored motor vehicle is adapted based on the current environmental conditions and the historical information about motor vehicles driving over roads (Paragraphs 0080-0081, 0105-0106, 0117, 0121-0124, Fig. 5).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, and Nishizaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20250182625 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses motor vehicles.
Xu does not specifically state the motor vehicles are a mix of automobiles, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, mini-vans, delivery vans, delivery trucks, semi-trucks, concrete mixer trucks, and service trucks.
However, Chen teaches the motor vehicles are a mix of automobiles, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, mini-vans, delivery vans, delivery trucks, semi-trucks, concrete mixer trucks, and service trucks (Abstract, Paragraph 0032; “the autonomous vehicle may be any type of vehicle including, but not limited to, cars, trucks (e.g. garbage trucks, tractor-trailers, pickup trucks, etc.), motorcycles, buses, recreational vehicles, street cleaning or sweeping vehicles, etc”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with a mix of different types of vehicles of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different types of vehicles all use the road which could lead to congestion. It is necessary to control different types of vehicles to re-route in order to reduce congestion. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Chen as this achieves reduced road congestion. As stated in Chen, “information about the status of the autonomous vehicles including current routes may be reported to a fleet management system. This information may be leveraged in order to determine when it may be appropriate to send the autonomous vehicles on different routes. This may involve adjusting costs of certain map information to discourage traversal of such areas of the route information. This may help distribute traffic more evenly between the various feasible route options and may prevent overuse of such areas” (Paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, and Nishizaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moreira (US 20190068434 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses receiving information about motor vehicles by a cell site of the RAN (Paragraphs 0042, 0066, 0091-0092; “Communication between the mobile device 122 and the server 125 through the network 127 may use a variety of types of wireless networks. For example, the network 127 may be a cellular network”).
Xu does not specifically state storing the information about motor vehicles received by the cell site in a data store, whereby historical information about motor vehicles is accumulated.
However, Moreira teaches storing the information about motor vehicles received by the cell site in a data store, whereby historical information about motor vehicles is accumulated (Paragraphs 0226-0227; “the vehicles carry the data until they can send the data to the Cloud (e.g., until finding a fixed access point (FAP) with Internet connection, such as via fiber), and 4) the vehicles send the sensor data to the AP(s) which sends it to the Cloud for storage/processing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with storing historical information about motor vehicles received by a cell site, in a data store of Moreira with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that historical information about motor vehicles driving over roads can be stored in a database and analyzed on a server. This allows servers to determine which routes an autonomous vehicle may travel to get to its destination. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Moreira as this achieves improved routing. As stated in Moreira, “The data may then be processed (e.g., centrally, such as in the Cloud 701) to enable making intelligent decisions based thereon—e.g., proposing actions that allow to bring the current state closer to the goal. The actions proposed may comprise routes that AVs may use, such as when the AVs are performing transportation functions (e.g., when the AVs need to go from one place to another), which may also be tailored based on scanning needs and/or existing information” (Paragraph 0229).
Claims 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, and Nishizaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US 20230360853 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses a vehicle control parameter (Paragraphs 0121-0124; “The autonomous vehicle may steer, brake, or accelerate the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle in order, and may respond to routes including path segments received from geographic database 123 and the server 125 and driving commands or navigation commands”).
Xu does not specifically state the vehicle control parameter comprises a maximum wheel torque recommendation.
However, Choi teaches the vehicle control parameter comprises a maximum wheel torque recommendation (Paragraph 0060, 0076-0078; “the motor 250 can be driven based on the current command value corresponding to the maximum torque calculated in real time by the server 600. Thus, maximum torque drive of the motor 250 can be achieved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with the vehicle control parameter comprising a maximum wheel torque recommendation of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that based on vehicle conditions such as driving modes and road inclination, a maximum wheel torque recommendation can be determined. This allows the vehicle to drive under maximum torque for different vehicle inputs. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Choi as this achieves driving under maximum torque for different situations. As stated in Choi, “the maximum torque drive of the motor 250 under various conditions can be achieved” (Paragraphs 0077-0078).
Regarding claim 22, Xu discloses a vehicle control parameter (Paragraphs 0121-0124; “The autonomous vehicle may steer, brake, or accelerate the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle in order, and may respond to routes including path segments received from geographic database 123 and the server 125 and driving commands or navigation commands”).
Xu does not specifically state the operating parameter change is associated with at least one of a changed maximum vehicle speed limit, a vehicle separation minimum, a changed wheel torque limit, or an engine RPM limit.
However, Choi teaches the operating parameter change is associated with at least one of a changed maximum vehicle speed limit, a vehicle separation minimum, a changed wheel torque limit, or an engine RPM limit (Paragraph 0060, 0076-0078; “the motor 250 can be driven based on the current command value corresponding to the maximum torque calculated in real time by the server 600. Thus, maximum torque drive of the motor 250 can be achieved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with the operating parameter change is associated with a changed wheel torque limit of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that based on vehicle conditions such as driving modes and road inclination, a maximum wheel torque limit can be determined. This allows the vehicle to drive under maximum torque for different vehicle inputs. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Choi as this achieves driving under maximum torque for different situations. As stated in Choi, “the maximum torque drive of the motor 250 under various conditions can be achieved” (Paragraphs 0077-0078).
Claims 8, 12-14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20220196425 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Joseph (US 20180180583 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses A system for augmenting control of a motor vehicle based on driving conditions and radio access network (RAN) conditions, comprising (Paragraphs 0107-0110, 0114, 0123, 0136; “controller 900 enables or disables a driving assistance feature based on the data requirement and the wireless performance data”);
a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor (Paragraphs 0082-0083; “The server 125 may include a bus 810 that facilitates communication between a controller (e.g., the routing controller 121) that may be implemented by a processor 801 and/or an application specific controller 802, which may be referred to individually or collectively as controller 800, and one or more other components including a database 803, a memory 804, a computer readable medium 805”).
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 3. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses the application transmits the information about the preferred driving route to the telematics unit via a cell site of the RAN (Paragraphs 0042, 0085, 0107, 0136; “Communication between the mobile device 122 and the server 125 through the network 127 may use a variety of types of wireless networks. For example, the network 127 may be a cellular network”).
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses the cell site establishes a wireless communication link with the telematics unit of the monitored motor vehicle according to a 5G, a long-term evolution (LTE), a code division multiple access (CDMA), or a global system for mobile communications (GSM) telecommunication protocol (Paragraph 0042; “The cellular technologies may be analog advanced mobile phone system (AMPS), the global system for mobile communication (GSM), third generation partnership project (3GPP), code division multiple access (CDMA), personal handy-phone system (PHS), and 4G or long-term evolution (LTE) standards, 5G, DSRC (dedicated short-range communication), or another protocol”).
Regarding claim 24, the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 21. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Joseph, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Robeson (US 20210033403 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses historical information about motor vehicles.
Xu does not specifically state the historical information about motor vehicles comprises anti-skid information.
However, Robeson teaches the historical information about motor vehicles comprises anti-skid information (Paragraph 0005; “The server stores crowd-sourced vehicle performance records including traction control system information, coefficient of friction (CoF) values for road segments”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with historical anti-skid information of Robeson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a server is able to store road segments with low traction. This enables maps to be generated to assist vehicles in determining safe driving routes. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Robeson as this achieves determining safer driving routes. As stated in Robeson, “the drivability maps enable vehicles associated with the navigation consoles to follow safe driving routes with a low probability of becoming immobilized due to poor roadway traction” (Paragraph 0019).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, and Nishizaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Avedisov (US 20250187619 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 23, Xu discloses vehicle operating parameters and road conditions.
Xu does not specifically state training a machine learning model using vehicle operating parameters and road conditions received from telematics units in vehicles; wherein the operating parameter change is determined using the trained machine learning model.
However, Avedisov teaches training a machine learning model using vehicle operating parameters and road conditions received from telematics units in vehicles (Paragraphs 0069-0070, 0101-0103; “The machine learning model 150 may be trained to determine a situation that the vehicle is currently in or is about to be in based on the sensor data”).
wherein the operating parameter change is determined using the trained machine learning model (Paragraph 0079; “The server processes the data using functionality such as machine learning models… The server sends a command to the vehicle to activate the identified feature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with training a machine learning model on vehicle operating parameters and road conditions to determine operating parameter changes of Avedisov with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that certain vehicle features such as driving modes and traction control may remain off in normal conditions, but may need to be activated in difficult road conditions. A machine learning model is able to determine when these features need to be turned on so the vehicle can manage the road conditions effectively. One would have been motivated to combine Xu with Avedisov as this achieves successfully navigation difficult road conditions. As stated in Avedisov, “The server identifies the inactive features that, if activated, would assist the vehicle in overcoming the current challenge. The server sends a command to the vehicle to activate the identified feature” (Paragraph 0079).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Joseph, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Choi (US 20230360853 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 25, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 22. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Joseph, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Avedisov (US 20250187619 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 26, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 23. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, and Nishizaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Speicher (US 20210084558 A1).
Claim 27
Xu does not teach:
Determining a communication loading of the RAN; handing over connection from a first cell site to a second cell site based on the current network load and destination of the vehicle.
However, Speicher teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring network communication of the RAN to determine a current network communication loading of the RAN (Speicher - Paragraphs 0105, 0107) “the load information of the first base station and the load information of the second base station are received by the relay”
and controlling a communication network to which the monitored motor vehicle is communicatively coupled via the RAN to hand-over a connection of the monitored motor vehicle from a first cell site of the RAN to a second cell site of the RAN based on the current network communication loading of the RAN (Speicher - Paragraph 0107) “decide to trigger the handover to another base station if the radio coverage provided to the relay by the serving base station is good but the serving base station is getting overloaded and there is a neighboring base station which is not overloaded”
and the destination of the monitored motor vehicle (Speicher - Paragraph 0107) “take into account information about the available base stations along the expected path of the relay for the case when the relays are placed in vehicles with a known path”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with handing over connection from a first cell site to a second cell site based on the current network load and destination of the vehicle of Speicher with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Xu and Speicher both discuss vehicles connected to cell sites. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents cell sites from being overloaded (Speicher – Paragraph 0107).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, Nishizaki, and Avedisov, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Zheng (US 20240028601 A1).
Claim 28
Xu does not teach:
Storing the machine learning model in a data store; retraining the machine learning model using a rolling window of vehicle operating parameters and road conditions.
However, Zheng teaches:
storing the machine learning model in a data store (Zheng - Paragraph 0021) ““off-board” the vehicle (e.g., at one or more remote compute devices in wireless network communication with the vehicle), such that the machine learning model can be trained in an offline “pipeline.””
and periodically retraining, on a scheduled periodic basis, the machine learning model using a rolling block of vehicle operating parameters and road conditions stored in the data store, wherein the rolling block comprises vehicle operating parameters and road conditions received from the telematics units within a predefined most recent time period and excludes vehicle operating parameters and road conditions received from the telematics units prior to the predefined most recent time period (Zheng - Paragraphs 0014, 0057, 0062) “The trained machine learning model can be retrained over time based on subsequently-received sensor data. Features for the subsequently-received sensor data can be used to generate features or indices, for example using one or more sliding windows”
and wherein each periodic retraining begins from a previously trained version of the machine learning model as a starting point (Zheng - Paragraphs 0014, 0057, 0062) “iteratively retraining the trained machine learning model over time”
and uses only vehicle operating parameters and road conditions received from the telematics units since a previous training of the machine learning model (Zheng - Paragraphs 0014, 0057, 0062) “iteratively retraining the trained machine learning model over time based on subsequently-received sensor data”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with retraining the machine learning model using a rolling window of data of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Xu and Zheng discuss vehicle networks with machine learning models. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the machine learning model’s predictive powers (Zheng – Paragraph 0051).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ahmed, Joseph, Nishizaki, Avedisov, and Zheng, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Li (CN 110990870 A).
Claim 29
Xu teaches:
wherein the application determines the operating parameter change for the monitored motor vehicle by (Xu - Paragraphs 0121-0124) “The autonomous vehicle may steer, brake, or accelerate the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle in order, and may respond to routes including path segments received from geographic database 123 and the server 125 and driving commands or navigation commands”
Xu does not teach:
The application selects one of a plurality of machine learning models based on the type of vehicle.
However, Li teaches:
the machine learning model is one of a plurality of machine learning models, each model of the plurality of machine learning models uniquely corresponding to different motor vehicle types (Li – Page 11 Paragraph 2 – Page 11 Paragraph 3) “different brand and type of vehicle can correspond to different models”
selecting, based on a type of the monitored motor vehicle, one of the plurality of machine learning models to query, wherein a first machine learning model of the plurality of machine learning models is selected to determine the operating parameter change for a first type of motor vehicle (Li - Page 11 Paragraph 2 – Page 11 Paragraph 3) “according to the brand of the vehicle first vehicle terminal belongs to and/or model, determining the target model”
and a second, different machine learning model of the plurality of machine learning models is selected to determine the operating parameter change for a second, different type of motor vehicle (Li - Page 11 Paragraph 2 – Page 11 Paragraph 3, Page 13 Paragraph 8) “according to the brand of the vehicle first vehicle terminal belongs to and/or model, determining the target model”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Xu with the application selecting one of a plurality of machine learning models based on the type of vehicle of Li with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Xu and Li both discuss vehicle networking with machine learning models. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the machine learning algorithm for the server and the vehicle based on the type of vehicle (Li – Page 14 Paragraph 3).
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights