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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 26 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 15 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-14 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1: Applicant claims
determining, by the controller and based on information collected during remote driving of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is driving abnormally;
Driving abnormally is considered a term of degree. MPEP 2173.05(b) states:
Terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite. “Claim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370, 112 USPQ2d 1188, 1192-93 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 65-66 (1923) (finding ‘substantial pitch’ sufficiently definite because one skilled in the art ‘had no difficulty … in determining what was the substantial pitch needed’ to practice the invention)). Thus, when a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, 94 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, 94 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases “relatively shallow,” “of the order of,” “the order of about 5mm,” and “substantial portion” were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended.
Applicant specification describes driving abnormally by example only per the following citations:
[0012] Determining whether the vehicle is driving abnormally may include: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of: the vehicle being required to stop, a door being opened, or the occupant attempting to drive the vehicle manually before a destination is reached.
[0013] Determining whether the vehicle is driving abnormally may include: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of: a remote driver vacating a driver's seat, or the remote driver remaining disengaged from driving for more than a threshold amount of time.
[0014] Determining whether the vehicle is driving abnormally may include: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of: a vehicle accident being predicted, the vehicle accident being occurred, or a malfunction signal of a vehicle device being generated.
[0015] Determining whether the vehicle is driving abnormally may include: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on a communication disruption between the vehicle and a remote control center.
[0016] Determining whether the vehicle is driving abnormally may include: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of: a simulation device malfunctioning, or detecting a cybersecurity issue.
However, while Applicant provides a list of examples of driving abnormally, these examples do not provide meaningful standards for measuring the degree of what is considered abnormal driving. Further, the inclusion of “may include” means this is not an exhaustive list of examples. Therefore, there are a plurality of conditions/scenarios of which it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill whether they are considered abnormal. For example, one of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain if the following conditions/scenarios should be considered abnormal: Detection of an obstacle, detection of a law enforcement officer directing traffic, determining that a road is impassable, required rerouting of a navigation route, determining a low fuel level, and/or determining a medical emergency of a vehicle occupant. The metes and bounds of the claimed determining… whether the vehicle is driving abnormally is therefore unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Examiner Note: It is noted that Applicant claims 5-9 claim the examples outlined in Applicant disclosure in closed list form. While claims 5-9 are still considered indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claim 1, the determination that a vehicle is driving abnormally is not considered indefinite in claims 5-9 because claims 5-9 claim closed, defined conditions/scenarios for the determination that a vehicle is driving abnormally. Therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner assumes that the determination of whether a vehicle is driving abnormally of claim 1 includes at least one of the conditions/scenarios outlined in claims 5-9.
Further in regards to claim 1: Applicant claims
collecting… vehicle information required for remote driving of a vehicle [and] request information from an occupant of the vehicle
then Applicant claims:
remotely driving… based on the collected information, the vehicle;
The antecedent basis and metes and bounds of the collected information therefore includes both vehicle information [and] request information.
However, Applicant further claims the following:
determining… based on information collected during remote driving of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is driving abnormally;
This limitation is considered indefinite because:
First, Applicant appears to use the same claimed “collected information” using different nomenclature and limitation, “information collected”. Consistency with nomenclature is required between claim terms.
Second, as outlined above, the “driving abnormally” is interpreted in view of cited examples in Applicant specification, however none of the cited examples include instances of request information from an occupant of the vehicle, as required by the metes and bounds of the collected information. There does not appear to be any structural support in Applicant disclosure of generating an abnormal driving or driving abnormality based on request information or information received from an occupant of the vehicle.
Third, applicant claims “information collected” specifically “during remote driving” in order to generate a “driving abnormally” determination. While one of ordinary skill would clearly understand that vehicle information required for remote driving of a vehicle would correlate with information collected during remote driving of the vehicle, this exacerbates the second point above because it is unclear if request information from an occupant of the vehicle request information from an occupant of the vehicle is part of the required metes and bounds of the “driving abnormally” determination.
Therefore this limitation is considered indefinite as claimed. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 4, Applicant claims:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the alternative information comprises at least one of: location information, of the occupant, obtained through a terminal associated with the occupant, or location information, of the vehicle, obtained through a surveillance camera installed on the vehicle.
However, due to improper comma usage combined with the optional nature “at least one of” of these limitations, the metes and bounds of the claimed alternative information is unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ullrich et al. (US 20170308082 A1) herein Ullrich.
In regards to Claim 1, Ullrich discloses the following:
1. A method comprising: collecting, by a controller (see at least [0031] “central server” and [0032] “The server and its processors”)
vehicle information required for remote driving of a vehicle, (see at least [0022] “Each [autonomous] vehicle can be equipped with sensors (e.g., panorama video cameras), both for the vehicle's interior and exterior views. The sensors can also include one or more microphones, and one or more “assistance” type push buttons.” and [0024] “autonomous vehicle can send its sensory input information to the control center and the control center can send control information to the autonomous vehicle. The communication can occur over existing wireless networks and the latency period should be as short as possible, such that the system is operating in real time. That is, the connection should be fast enough such that an operator in the control room can receive sensory input data from the autonomous vehicle and then effectively control the autonomous vehicle based on the received data.”)
and request information from an occupant of the vehicle; (see at least [0025] “Events can include a broad variety of scenarios such as a passenger pushing a passenger assistance button (e.g., to ask for directions, to request a stop, to report an emergency, or to ask for general assistance) or a passenger pushing an emergency stop button.”)
remotely driving, by the controller and based on the collected information, the vehicle; (see at least [0024] “operator in the control room can receive sensory input data from the autonomous vehicle and then effectively control the autonomous vehicle based on the received data.”)
As best understood, Ullrich discloses the following:
determining, by the controller and based on information collected during remote driving of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is driving abnormally; (see at least [0005] “When an event occurs, the autonomous vehicle can communicate the event with the control center”, [0025] “Events can include… a passenger pushing a passenger assistance button (e.g., to ask for directions, to request a stop, to report an emergency, or to ask for general assistance) or a passenger pushing an emergency stop button… autonomous vehicle system malfunctions and deadlock situations in which the software of the autonomous vehicle reaches an impasse... situations in which the autonomous vehicle reaches a threshold uncertainty level, a threshold risk level, and a failure of autonomous control.”)
and adjusting, by the controller, a behavior of the vehicle to ensure safety based on the vehicle driving abnormally. (see at least [0025] “The autonomous vehicle can automatically initiate a dialogue or prompt the control center when an event occurs. In this way, the control center can increase safety of autonomous vehicle operations, assist in emergencies, and otherwise increase passenger satisfaction.” and “the software of the autonomous vehicle can record an event, send a signal, and initiate a response or a dialogue with the control center.”)
In regards to Claim 2, Ullrich discloses the following:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle information comprises: output information reflecting the behavior of the vehicle, (see at least [0026] “sensory inputs of the autonomous vehicle can include one or more of an exterior front-facing video camera, a rear-facing video camera, a panoramic video camera, an exterior microphone, an interior microphone, a passenger assistance button, and an emergency stop button. The front facing camera can capture vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, roadway hazards, and normal driving activities. The rear-facing camera can act much the same way as a rear-view mirror. The exterior microphone can be used by an operator of the control room to communicate with those outside the vehicle to help when there is a safety issue, an emergency, or another type of event where communication may be beneficial.” and [0029] “control center can on its own accord and at any time monitor the sensory inputs from the autonomous vehicle. In other words, an event is not required for the control center to take control or observe the operations of the autonomous vehicle.”)
and video information obtained by capturing images inside and outside the vehicle. (see at least [0021] “Operators can switch between immersive environments of vehicles they control. In any given environment, an operator can see a panorama outside and inside the vehicle”, [0022] “Each vehicle can be equipped with sensors (e.g., panorama video cameras), both for the vehicle's interior and exterior views.”)
In regards to Claim 5, Ullrich discloses the following:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is driving abnormally comprises: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of:
the vehicle being required to stop, (see at least [0025] “Events can include… a passenger pushing an emergency stop button.”
a door being opened, (optional)
or the occupant attempting to drive the vehicle manually before a destination is reached. (optional)
In regards to Claim 7, Ullrich discloses the following:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is driving abnormally comprises: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of:
a vehicle accident being predicted, (optional)
the vehicle accident being occurred, (optional)
or a malfunction signal of a vehicle device being generated. (see at least [0025] “Events can also include autonomous vehicle system malfunctions and deadlock situations in which the software of the autonomous vehicle reaches an impasse.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich as applied to claim 1, in further view of Okumura et al. (US 20160139594 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Okumura:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
collecting, based on the vehicle information or the request information not satisfying a predetermined condition, alternative information about the vehicle; (see at least [0024] “under normal operating circumstances, the sensors 130 will provide enough information for the computing device 100 to operate the vehicle 200 in autonomous mode. However, the vehicle 200 may from time to time encounter unexpected driving environments in which autonomous operation is inappropriate”, and [0027] “when the computing device 100 prepares to enter remote operation mode upon identifying an unexpected driving environment, the computing device 100 requests information from the sensors 130 about the vehicle's 200 movement and the unexpected driving environment.” And [0028] “the data collected for remote operation mode can be the same data [as] during autonomous mode. In another example implementation, however, different or additional data can be collected”) and remotely driving the vehicle based on the alternative information. (see at least [0026] “In the remote operation mode, the vehicle 200 can be remotely operated by a remote operator.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Okumura with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing remote driving in environments that the vehicle encounters are too complex or hazardous to rely exclusively on the autonomous systems without disturbing the occupant, who may rather not have to control the vehicle. (Okumura, [0002]) This arrangement would be especially advantageous in the embodiment of Ullrich where a small number of operators can control a larger number of vehicles, providing a concierge service to passengers and emergency remote driving of autonomous vehicles triggered by events, such as the inability to resolve a situation or the need to request help. (Ullrich, [0021])
In regards to Claim 4, as best understood, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Okumura:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the alternative information comprises at least one of: location information, of the occupant, obtained through a terminal associated with the occupant, or location information, of the vehicle, obtained through a surveillance camera installed on the vehicle. (see at least [0015] “Among other information detectable by the sensors 130, the sensors 130 can detect vehicle speed, vehicle direction, vehicle acceleration, vehicle rotation, vehicle location” and [0027] “This information can include image data (including video data), location data, and radar and/or lidar data.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Okumura with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing remote driving in environments that the vehicle encounters are too complex or hazardous to rely exclusively on the autonomous systems without disturbing the occupant, who may rather not have to control the vehicle. (Okumura, [0002]) This arrangement would be especially advantageous in the embodiment of Ullrich where a small number of operators can control a larger number of vehicles, providing a concierge service to passengers and emergency remote driving of autonomous vehicles triggered by events, such as the inability to resolve a situation or the need to request help. (Ullrich, [0021])
In regards to Claim 14, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Okumura:
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting of the behavior of the vehicle comprises transferring driving control to the vehicle such that the occupant is able to drive the vehicle manually. (see at least [0022] “The vehicle 200 can include options for operating in manual mode or autonomous mode. When the vehicle 200 is in manual mode, the driver manually controls the vehicle systems 116.”, [0033] “If, on the other hand, the driver does not elect to contact the remote operator, then the vehicle 200 can switch to manual mode and the driver can take control of the vehicle 200 and vehicle systems 116.” And [0034] “the remote operator can advise the driver that control is being ceded to the driver and that the vehicle 200 will be entering manual mode.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Okumura with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing remote driving in environments that the vehicle encounters are too complex or hazardous to rely exclusively on the autonomous systems without disturbing the occupant, who may rather not have to control the vehicle. (Okumura, [0002]) This arrangement would be especially advantageous in the embodiment of Ullrich where a small number of operators can control a larger number of vehicles, providing a concierge service to passengers and emergency remote driving of autonomous vehicles triggered by events, such as the inability to resolve a situation or the need to request help. (Ullrich, [0021])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich as applied to claim 1, in further view of Franz et al. (US 20150035656 A1).
In regards to Claim 6, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Franz:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is driving abnormally comprises:
determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of:
a remote driver vacating a driver’s seat, (see at least [0014] “The remote control system includes a control unit 110 that is configured to send a control signal 102 to a machine 10 from a position remote from the machine 10.”, [0017] “user interface 118 that includes the controls necessary for operating the machine 10 from the remote control system 100”, Fig. 4 and [0023] “sensor 120 includes a pressure sensor that is configured to register the presence of the operator thereon. In various implementations, such a pressure sensor is configured to sense an operator sitting or standing thereon, for example.” And [0033] “If the seat switch is not closed (block 244), then functions of the machine 10 (and/or the implement 11 associated therewith) are limited”)
or the remote driver remaining disengaged from driving for more than a threshold amount of time. (see at least [0034] “In some implementations using a seat switch as illustrated in FIG. 5, a delay is incorporated to allow movement or adjustment of the operator. For example, if the seat switch opens when an operator momentarily raises from the seat then closes again (the operator returns to a seated position) within some predetermined time period (3 seconds in some embodiments), functions of the machine are not limited”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Franz with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving operator safety (Franz [0014]) and/or to address security concerns resulting from the absence of a driver. (Ullrich, [0003])
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich as applied to claim 1, in further view of Levinson et al. (US 20180136651 A1) herein Levinson.
In regards to Claim 8, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Levinson:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is driving abnormally comprises: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on a communication disruption between the vehicle and a remote control center. (see at least [0056] “autonomous vehicle controller 147 may transmit request message 105 for teleoperation services. In response, a teleoperator computing device 104 15 may receive instructions from a teleoperator 108 to perform a course of action to successfully (and safely) negotiate obstacles”, [0059] “events may be internal to an autonomous vehicle, or external. For example, an obstacle obscuring a roadway may be viewed as an event, as well as a reduction or loss of communication.” [0148] “teleoperator 3608 may be able to visually review actions of autonomous vehicle 3630 during a loss of communication (e.g., during which autonomous vehicle 3630 self-navigates using a contingent trajectory to performs a safe-stop operation when principal trajectories are not available, such as if operation of a planner degrades or fails).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Levinson with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of implementing an autonomous vehicle communications link manager (Levinson, [0100]) with policy data capable of handling events, such as degraded or lost communications. (Levinson, [0102])
In regards to Claim 13, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Levinson:
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting of the behavior of the vehicle comprises alerting a neighboring vehicle. (see at least [0053] “bidirectional autonomous vehicle 130 may be configured to implement active lighting external to the vehicle to alert others (e.g., other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) in the adjacent vicinity, and a direction in which bidirectional autonomous vehicle 130 is traveling.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Levinson with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of promoting driverless vehicle interactions (e.g., social interactions) between a vehicle-in-travel and other drivers of vehicles or individuals, for purposes of addressing safety risks to occupants of a driverless vehicles, as well as drivers of other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. (Levinson, [0006])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich et al. (US 20170308082 A1) herein Ullrich.
In regards to Claim 9, Ullrich suggests the following:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is driving abnormally comprises: determining that the vehicle is driving abnormally based on at least one of:
a simulation device malfunctioning, (see at least Fig. 1 “simulator” and [0009] “control center may accomplish this using an immersive simulator, much like that of a driver's seat”, [0022] “simulator tool” and “Deadlock situations can occur when the autonomous vehicle software analysis reaches a threshold uncertainty level or a threshold risk level, or when there is a failure of autonomous control. A deadlock situation can also occur when the programming or program execution of the autonomous vehicles navigation system freezes, is unable to determine navigational steps or otherwise quits working.”) or
detecting a cybersecurity issue. (optional)
Ullrich explicitly discloses a simulation device at Fig. 1, [0009] and [0022]. Further, Ullrich explicitly discloses software deadlock situations (i.e. malfunctioning) for the autonomous vehicle resulting in a failure of autonomous control, at [0022]. However, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose detecting a malfunction that includes a software deadlock situation of the immersive simulator.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the malfunctioning deadlock software detection algorithms of Ullrich to the immersive simulator of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of monitoring for emergency situations. (Ullrich, [0007]-[0008]) One of ordinary skill would clearly understand that failure of the simulator of Ullrich may result in a failure of autonomous control, compromising safety. (Ullrich, [0025]) Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ward et al. (US 6633800 B1) herein Ward.
In regards to Claim 10, Ullrich suggests the following:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting of the behavior of the vehicle comprises: applying an emergency brake on the vehicle. (see at least [0006], [0028] “The control center can control all aspects of the autonomous vehicle including… braking” and [0007], [0025] “While the vehicle is operating autonomously, it can alert the control center or open a dialogue with the control center if an event occurs. Events can include… a passenger pushing a emergency stop button”)
Ullrich explicitly discloses applying… [a] brake on the vehicle at [0006], [0028]. Ullrich further explicitly discloses detecting a passenger pushing an emergency stop button that is within the metes and bounds of the vehicle driving abnormally, triggering adjusting… a behavior of the vehicle, per claim 1. However, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose applying said brake in response to said passenger pushing an emergency stop button.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the brake of Ullrich in response to a passenger pushing an emergency stop button of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of helping increase safety and consumer satisfaction with autonomous vehicles and help bridge the gap towards completely autonomation. (Ullrich, [0023]) One of ordinary skill would clearly understand that a passenger would be unsatisfied if the vehicle was not stopped when pushing an emergency stop button.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 10 is also more explicitly taught by Ward. (see at least Fig. 1 “Tele-operator station” and “Mining Vehicle”, Fig. 2, parking brake 66, service brake 64, Fig. 12 “Tele-Operation Mode”, “Emergency Stop”, “Parking Brake”, Col. 5, lines 40-43 and Col. 11, lines 1-7)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Ward with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of greatly increasing the safety of vehicle operators of vehicle operating in hazardous environments, such as mining vehicles operating in areas where there are collapsing ore bodies. (Ward, Col. 1, lines 33-37)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich in view of Ward as applied to claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Kajiwara et al. (US 20230145724 A1) herein Kajiwara.
In regards to Claim 11, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Kajiwara:
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the applying of the emergency brake comprises requesting to the occupant to apply the emergency brake on the vehicle. (see at least [0035] “the driver-abnormality emergency stop function is briefly referred to as an “emergency stop function.””, [0037] “when the occupant does not respond to the call in the response confirmation time, the host vehicle A starts automatic stop control” and [0059] “the controller 120 has a function of controlling the emergency stop function in addition to a driving support function such as lane keeping or lane change. Specifically, the controller 120 performs control for automatically stopping the host vehicle M (hereinafter referred to as “automatic stop control”) when an operation of instructing performance of the emergency stop function is input”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Kajiwara with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a necessary automatic stop control of a vehicle in response to a driver's operation, as determined by the driver when the driver's condition is abnormal and/or in a case in which the driver wants to stop the vehicle for another reason. (Kajiwara [0004])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullrich as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Bate et al. (US 20050187693 A1) herein Bate.
In regards to Claim 12, Ullrich does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Bate:
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting of the behavior of the vehicle comprises limiting a drive torque output of the vehicle. (see at least [0028] “Typical use scenarios for the need to shutdown the engine begin when some external event is received by the vehicle's communication system, translated into a shutdown command”, [0038] “reducing a speed of the vehicle in response to a vehicle shutdown signal, monitoring at least one of a speed of the vehicle and a torque of an engine of the vehicle, determining whether the monitored at least one of the speed and torque is decreasing, if the monitored at least one of the speed and torque is not decreasing, enabling the engine of the vehicle to operate at a reduced power level, and stopping the vehicle when the monitored at least one of the speed and torque has reached a predetermined level”, [0047] “signal to control the torque would prevent the vehicle from moving by reducing the torque generated by the engine 104” and “slowly decrease the torque output”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the features of Bate with the invention of Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing for vehicle recovery, for example during criminal events when there is need to disable the vehicle to prevent theft of cargo, or operating the vehicle in unauthorized manner or location. Disabling the vehicle is tied to an improved safety from the standpoint of the driver, the terrain, and the surrounding traffic environment. (Bate, [0002])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
April 3, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights