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 .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed February 26, 2026. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
4. 35 USC § 101 rejection. Applicant's arguments/remarks filed February 26, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 112 rejection is withdrawn.
5. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed February 26, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that “the cited references do not disclose mechanically selecting between enabling and disabling a first electronic control unit for controlling a non- teleassistance operating mode and a second electronic control unit for controlling a teleassistance operating mode. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose every element of independent claims 1, 11, and 18 as currently recited. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the § 103 rejections of claims 1, 11, and 18 and of their respective dependent claims.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) …; In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R¢ portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”.
Pursuant to MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations argued by the applicant are described in the combination of the prior art reference presented in the non-final rejection. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the systems disclosed in the prior art to allow the system to have some type of mechanical device to switch modes of operation. The prior art reference teaches a button or display icon that can be selected to switch modes of operation. It would have been obvious for a person or ordinary skill in the art to combine this type of selector to switch the operation of a vehicle system. Additionally, the specification in paragraph 38 describes these lectors as (“For example, the mechanical selector 104 may be a switch (e.g., rotary switch, slide switch, slide switch, toggle switch), a selector (e.g., push-button selector, cam selector, dial selector), or other mechanisms that may switch or toggle between at least a first position and a second position.”). These devices are conventionally and known in the art so they would have been obvious to be modified in a vehicle system to allow mode selector. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kroop et al, US 2018/0224850, in view of Castro et al. US 2019/0270408, hereinafter referred to as Kroop and Castro, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Kroop discloses a system comprising:
a control system for controlling one or more operations of a machine, the control system having a first operating mode and a second operating mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 1, 12, 14, 24, 40, 23, “the AV 100 can autonomously steer, accelerate, shift, brake, and operate lighting components. Some variations also recognize that the AV 100 can switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system 120 autonomously operates the AV 100, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control of the acceleration system 172, steering system 174, braking system 176, and lighting and auxiliary systems 178”), wherein the first operating mode includes a non-teleassistance mode and the second operating mode includes a teleassistance mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, “the control system 120 can include a teleassistance module 125 to enable remote human teleassistance operators 199 to aid the AV 100 in progressing along the route plan 139 when a teleassistance state or scenario is detected, or when the AV control system 120 encounters a "stuck" situation.”); and
Kroop fails to explicitly disclose a mechanical selector to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode via a mechanical mechanism, use of the mechanical selector being required to transition from the first operating mode to the second operating mode.
However, Castro teaches a mechanical selector to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode via a mechanical mechanism, use of the mechanical selector being required to transition from the first operating mode to the second operating mode (See at least fig 1-6, ¶ 39, 32, 24, 13, 12, “In various examples, the feedback system can also include a remote assist input feature ( e.g., a button or displayed icon) that the user can select in order to initiate remote assistance or inquiries.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kroop and include a mechanical selector to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode via a mechanical mechanism, use of the mechanical selector being required to transition from the first operating mode to the second operating mode as taught by Castro because it would allow the system to switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system autonomously operates the AV, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control (Castro ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 2, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the teleassistance mode includes one or more of: communicating data with a remote operation system; or causing the machine to perform one or more control operations based at least on data received from the remote operation system (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 44, “the vehicle control module 270 can initiate a request trigger 251 to cause the teleassistance module 210 to
generate a teleassistance data package 252 for remote teleassistance. The request trigger 251 can correspond to a teleassistance state in which the AV control system 200 is unable to resolve a certain anomaly, such as an indeterminate object, an occlusion in the sensor view, a closed road, a construction zone, a complex scenario”).
Regarding claim 3, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the system further comprises one or more impact sensors to generate impact sensor data; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection from the first operating mode to the second operating mode based at least on the impact sensor data (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 44, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, “the sensors 102 can include multiple sets of camera systems 101 (video cameras, stereoscopic cameras or depth perception cameras, long range monocular cameras), LIDAR systems 103, one or more radar systems 105, and various other sensor resources such as sonar, proximity sensors, infrared sensors, and the like”).
Regarding claim 4, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the control system includes a first electronic control unit associated with the first operating mode; the control system includes a second electronic control unit associated with the second operating mode; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode at least by causing a selection between first operations being controlled by the first electronic control unit and second operations being controlled by the second electronic control unit (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, “The AV control system 200 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the AV control system 120 of FIG. 1. Furthermore, the teleassistance module 210, perception/prediction engine 250, route planning engine 260, and vehicle control module 270 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the teleassistance module 125, perception/prediction engine 140, route planning engine 160, and vehicle control module 155 shown and described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kroop discloses the system of claim 4, wherein: the system includes a power source; a first switch coupled between the first electronic control unit and the power source; a second switch coupled between the second electronic control unit and the power source; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause the selection between first operations being controlled by the first electronic control unit and second operations being controlled by the second electronic control unit by controlling power being provided from the power source to one of the first electronic control unit or the second electronic control unit via the first switch or the second switch, respectively (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, 45, “the vehicle control module 270 can initiate a teleassist request trigger when the vehicle diagnostics indicate an issue with the acceleration, braking, steering, shifting, or auxiliary systems ( e.g., a low or flat tire, low oil pressure, low fuel or battery energy, overheating, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 6, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface coupled to the mechanical selector, wherein the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection from the first operating mode to the second operating mode based at least on user input received at the user interface (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 31, “the AV 100 can include a user interface 145, such as a touch-screen panel or speech recognition features, which can enable a passenger to input a destination 137. Additionally or alternatively, the AV control system 120 can include a communication interface 135”).
Kroop fails to explicitly disclose selection from the first operating mode to the second operating mode based at least on user input received at the user interface.
However, Castro teaches selection from the first operating mode to the second operating mode based at least on user input received at the user interface (See at least fig 1-6, ¶ 39, 32, 24, 13, 12, “In various examples, the feedback system can also include a remote assist input feature ( e.g., a button or displayed icon) that the user can select in order to initiate remote assistance or inquiries.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kroop and include selection from the first operating mode to the second operating mode based at least on user input received at the user interface as taught by Castro because it would allow the system to switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system autonomously operates the AV, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control (Castro ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 7, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the system further comprises an input switch configured to provide a mode input to the control system, the control system selecting to operate in the first operating mode or the second operating mode based at least on the mode input; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode at least by controlling the input switch (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 31, “the AV 100 can include a user interface 145, such as a touch-screen panel or speech recognition features, which can enable a passenger to input a destination 137. Additionally or alternatively, the AV control system 120 can include a communication interface 135”).
Kroop fails to explicitly disclose selecting to operate in the first operating mode or the second operating mode based at least on the mode input; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode at least by controlling the input switch.
However, Castro teaches selecting to operate in the first operating mode or the second operating mode based at least on the mode input; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode at least by controlling the input switch (See at least fig 1-6, ¶ 39, 32, 24, 13, 12, “In various examples, the feedback system can also include a remote assist input feature ( e.g., a button or displayed icon) that the user can select in order to initiate remote assistance or inquiries.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kroop and include selecting to operate in the first operating mode or the second operating mode based at least on the mode input; and the mechanical selector is configured to cause selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode at least by controlling the input switch as taught by Castro because it would allow the system to switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system autonomously operates the AV, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control (Castro ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 8, Kroop discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the control system is configured to reboot to switch between the first operating mode and the second operating mode based at least on the mode input (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, “The AV control system 200 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the AV control system 120 of FIG. 1. Furthermore, the teleassistance module 210, perception/prediction engine 250, route planning engine 260, and vehicle control module 270 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the teleassistance module 125, perception/prediction engine 140, route planning engine 160, and vehicle control module 155 shown and described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 9, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an alarm configured to generate a notification related to switching from the first operating mode to the second operating mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, 31, “event alerts 151 can be processed by the vehicle control module 155 that generates control commands 158 executable by the various control mechanisms 170 of the AV 100, such as the AV's acceleration, steering, and braking systems 172, 174, 176”).
Regarding claim 10, Kroop discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system implementing one or more multi-modal language models; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, 31, 26, “The AV 100 can be equipped with multiple types of sensors 102 which can combine to provide a computerized perception, or sensor view, of the space and the physical environment surrounding the AV 100. Likewise, the control system 120 can operate within the AV 100 to receive sensor data 115 from the sensor suite 102 and to control the various control mechanisms 170 in order to autonomously operate the AV 100. For example, the control system 120 can analyze the sensor data 115 to generate low level commands 158 executable by the acceleration system 172, steering system 157, and braking system 176 of the AV 100”).
Regarding claim 11, Kroop discloses a method comprising:
operating, by a control system, in a non-teleassistance operating mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, “the control system 120 can include a teleassistance module 125 to enable remote human teleassistance operators 199 to aid the AV 100 in progressing along the route plan 139 when a teleassistance state or scenario is detected, or when the AV control system 120 encounters a "stuck" situation.”); and
transitioning, by the control system, from the non-teleassistance operating mode to a teleassistance operating mode based at least on operation of a mechanical mechanism (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 1, 12, 14, 24, 40, 23, “the AV 100 can autonomously steer, accelerate, shift, brake, and operate lighting components. Some variations also recognize that the AV 100 can switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system 120 autonomously operates the AV 100, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control of the acceleration system 172, steering system 174, braking system 176, and lighting and auxiliary systems 178”).
Kroop fails to explicitly disclose a mechanical mechanism that mechanically selects between enabling and disabling a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit, the first electronic control unit configured to control the non-teleassistance operating mode and the second electronic control unit configured to control the teleassistance operating mode.
However, Castro teaches a mechanical mechanism that mechanically selects between enabling and disabling a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit, the first electronic control unit configured to control the non-teleassistance operating mode and the second electronic control unit configured to control the teleassistance operating mode (See at least fig 1-6, ¶ 39, 32, 24, 13, 12, “In various examples, the feedback system can also include a remote assist input feature ( e.g., a button or displayed icon) that the user can select in order to initiate remote assistance or inquiries.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kroop and include a mechanical mechanism that mechanically selects between enabling and disabling a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit, the first electronic control unit configured to control the non-teleassistance operating mode and the second electronic control unit configured to control the teleassistance operating mode as taught by Castro because it would allow the method to switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system autonomously operates the AV, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control (Castro ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 12, Kroop discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the transitioning from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode includes causing a selection between first operations being controlled by a first electronic control unit of the control system and second operations being controlled by a second electronic control unit of the control system (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, “The AV control system 200 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the AV control system 120 of FIG. 1. Furthermore, the teleassistance module 210, perception/prediction engine 250, route planning engine 260, and vehicle control module 270 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the teleassistance module 125, perception/prediction engine 140, route planning engine 160, and vehicle control module 155 shown and described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kroop discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the transitioning from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode includes rebooting to switch from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, “The AV control system 200 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the AV control system 120 of FIG. 1. Furthermore, the teleassistance module 210, perception/prediction engine 250, route planning engine 260, and vehicle control module 270 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the teleassistance module 125, perception/prediction engine 140, route planning engine 160, and vehicle control module 155 shown and described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 14, Kroop discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the transitioning from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode is based at least on impact sensor data generated by one or more impact sensors or user input data generated by user interface (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 44, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, “the sensors 102 can include multiple sets of camera systems 101 (video cameras, stereoscopic cameras or depth perception cameras, long range monocular cameras), LIDAR systems 103, one or more radar systems 105, and various other sensor resources such as sonar, proximity sensors, infrared sensors, and the like”).
Regarding claim 15, Kroop discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the transitioning from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode is in response to the impact sensor data indicating that an impact threshold has been satisfied (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 44, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, “the sensors 102 can include multiple sets of camera systems 101 (video cameras, stereoscopic cameras or depth perception cameras, long range monocular cameras), LIDAR systems 103, one or more radar systems 105, and various other sensor resources such as sonar, proximity sensors, infrared sensors, and the like”).
Regarding claim 16, Kroop discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the transitioning from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode is based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors configured to monitor condition of one or more components of an ego-machine (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 44, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, “The AV 100 can be equipped with multiple types of sensors 102 which can combine to provide a computerized perception, or sensor view, of the space and the physical
environment surrounding the AV 100. Likewise, the control system 120 can operate within the AV 100 to receive sensor data 115 from the sensor suite 102 and to control the various control mechanisms 170 in order to autonomously operate the AV 100.”).
Regarding claim 17, Kroop discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: causing, by the control system, an alarm to generate a notification related to switching from the non-teleassistance operating mode to the teleassistance operating mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, 31, “event alerts 151 can be processed by the vehicle control module 155 that generates control commands 158 executable by the various control mechanisms 170 of the AV 100, such as the AV's acceleration, steering, and braking systems 172, 174, 176”).
Regarding claim 18, Kroop discloses One or more processors comprising: processing circuitry to cause performance of operations comprising:
operating, by a control system, in a first operating mode, including a non-teleassistance mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, “the control system 120 can include a teleassistance module 125 to enable remote human teleassistance operators 199 to aid the AV 100 in progressing along the route plan 139 when a teleassistance state or scenario is detected, or when the AV control system 120 encounters a "stuck" situation.”); and
transitioning, by the control system, from the first operating mode to a second operating mode including a teleassistance mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 1, 12, 14, 24, 40, 23, “the AV 100 can autonomously steer, accelerate, shift, brake, and operate lighting components. Some variations also recognize that the AV 100 can switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system 120 autonomously operates the AV 100, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control of the acceleration system 172, steering system 174, braking system 176, and lighting and auxiliary systems 178”).
Kroop fails to explicitly disclose the transitioning executed based at least on operation of a mechanical mechanism that is required to enable the second operating mode.
However, Castro teaches the transitioning executed based at least on operation of a mechanical mechanism that is required to enable the second operating mode (See at least fig 1-6, ¶ 39, 32, 24, 13, 12, “In various examples, the feedback system can also include a remote assist input feature ( e.g., a button or displayed icon) that the user can select in order to initiate remote assistance or inquiries.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kroop and include the transitioning executed based at least on operation of a mechanical mechanism that is required to enable the second operating mode as taught by Castro because it would allow the system to switch between an autonomous mode, in which the AV control system autonomously operates the AV, and a manual mode in which a driver takes over manual control (Castro ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 19, Kroop discloses the one or more processors of claim 18, wherein the transitioning from the first operating mode to the second operating mode includes causing a selection between first operations being controlled by a first electronic control unit of the control system and second operations being controlled by a second electronic control unit of the control system (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, “The AV control system 200 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the AV control system 120 of FIG. 1. Furthermore, the teleassistance module 210, perception/prediction engine 250, route planning engine 260, and vehicle control module 270 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the teleassistance module 125, perception/prediction engine 140, route planning engine 160, and vehicle control module 155 shown and described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 20, Kroop discloses the one or more processors of claim 18, wherein the transitioning from the first operating mode to the second operating mode includes rebooting to switch from the first operating mode to the second operating mode (See at least fig 1-8, ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 50, 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 44, “The AV control system 200 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the AV control system 120 of FIG. 1. Furthermore, the teleassistance module 210, perception/prediction engine 250, route planning engine 260, and vehicle control module 270 of FIG. 2 can correspond to the teleassistance module 125, perception/prediction engine 140, route planning engine 160, and vehicle control module 155 shown and described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
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 LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (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 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights