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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the autonomous vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this is the same as the earlier claimed “first autonomous vehicle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 thru 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
conducting a teleassist session with a first autonomous vehicle operating in an environment, including exchanging situational data and teleassist operator input between the first autonomous vehicle and a remote teleassist system;
generating a location-based teleassist trigger in association with the teleassist session; and
communicating the location-based teleassist trigger to a remote live map system to cause the remote live map system to forward the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could determine conditions for starting an assist session based on a location. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A method, comprising:
conducting a teleassist session with a first autonomous vehicle operating in an environment, including exchanging situational data and teleassist operator input between the first autonomous vehicle and a remote teleassist system (extra-solution activity (data gathering and data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
generating a location-based teleassist trigger in association with the teleassist session; and
communicating the location-based teleassist trigger to a remote live map system to cause the remote live map system to forward the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of: conducting a teleassist session with a first autonomous vehicle operating in an environment, including exchanging situational data and teleassist operator input between the first autonomous vehicle and a remote teleassist system (data gathering and data outputting); and communicating the location-based teleassist trigger to a remote live map system to cause the remote live map system to forward the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle (data outputting), to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). These limitations merely establish communication (well-understood, routine and conventional activities).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of: conducting a teleassist session with a first autonomous vehicle operating in an environment, including exchanging situational data and teleassist operator input between the first autonomous vehicle and a remote teleassist system (data gathering and data outputting); and communicating the location-based teleassist trigger to a remote live map system to cause the remote live map system to forward the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle (data outputting), these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and they have been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data exchange/communication which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Additionally, adding a preliminary step of exchanging information to a process that recites generating location based information (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. Further, adding a final step of communicating information from a server to a vehicle to a process that only recites generating location based information (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 8 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claim 2 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a session suggestion that selectively suggests automatic initiation of a teleassist session with the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle satisfies a location-based criterion associated with the location-based teleassist trigger. (providing suggestions)
Claim 3 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a suggested action to be undertaken by the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle meets a location-based criterion associated with the location-based teleassist trigger. (providing suggestions)
Claim 4 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a suggested path to be followed by the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle meets a location-based criterion associated with the location-based teleassist trigger. (providing suggestions)
Claim 5 - in the first autonomous vehicle, receiving, from the remote live map system, observation data associated with one or more observations collected from the environment and controlling the autonomous vehicle using the received observation data. (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The claimed “controlling the autonomous vehicle” is interpreted as a practical application, but it is not integrated into abstract idea. The abstract idea is directed to a location-based teleassist trigger (claim 1) and the control of the vehicle is directed to observation data (claim 5). There is no connection or link between the abstract idea and controlling of the vehicle.
Claim 6 - selectively propagating observation data collected in association with the teleassist session to the remote live map system in response to teleassist operator input. (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Claim 7 - selectively modifying teleassist session data collected in association with the teleassist session in response to teleassist operator input.
Claim 8 - communicating the location-based teleassist trigger to the remote live map system causes the remote live map system to forward the location-based teleassist trigger to a plurality of autonomous vehicles in a fleet of autonomous vehicles. (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
These limitations are part of the abstract idea, additional elements that typical extra solution activity, or a practical application that is not integrated into the abstract idea.
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 9 recites “determining activation of the location-based teleassist trigger in response to determining that the first autonomous vehicle meets a location-based criterion associated with the location-based trigger”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the practical application of “controlling the first autonomous vehicle” is not linked or integrated into the “determining” step. Claim 9 receives data, controls the vehicle based on the received data, and receives the trigger to associate the session and the vehicle. The determination of activation is merely observing the received trigger and deciding if it meets a criterion. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, that do include a practical application, are not integrated to the abstract idea in a meaningful way. For example, claims 11 and 12 integrate the abstract idea into the practical application of controlling the vehicle based on the location based teleassist trigger. Claim 10 defines the teleassist session, and initiates a suggestion and communication (data outputting), which is interpreted as extra solution activity and not a practical application of the abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 merely define the location-based criterion, and are therefore included in the 101 rejection.
Claims 15 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 15 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
maintain observation data associated with a plurality of observations collected by a plurality of autonomous vehicles operating in an environment;
maintain a location-based teleassist trigger generated in association with a teleassist session conducted between a remote teleassist system and a first autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; and
communicate a portion of the observation data and the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles for use in controlling the second autonomous vehicle.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could keep or collect observation data and location-based trigger information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system, comprising:
one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), cause the system to:
maintain observation data associated with a plurality of observations collected by a plurality of autonomous vehicles operating in an environment;
maintain a location-based teleassist trigger generated in association with a teleassist session conducted between a remote teleassist system and a first autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; and
communicate a portion of the observation data and the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) for use in controlling the second autonomous vehicle.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of processors and a memory, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of communicate a portion of the observation data and the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The examiner notes that the claimed “for use in controlling the second autonomous vehicle” is merely an intended use of the communicated information without recitation of actually controlling the vehicle.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 15 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 15, the additional limitations of processors and a memory, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of communicate a portion of the observation data and the location-based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as they merely consist of data transmitting which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a final step of communicating information to a process that only recites maintaining information (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 16 thru 20 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claim 16 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a session suggestion that selectively suggests automatic initiation of a teleassist session with the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle satisfies a location-based criterion associated with the location-based teleassist trigger. (defining conditions, and providing suggestions)
Claim 17 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a suggested action to be undertaken by the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle meets a location-based criterion associated with the location-based teleassist trigger. (defining conditions, and providing suggestions)
Claim 18 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a suggested path to be followed by the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle meets a location-based criterion associated with the location-based teleassist trigger. (defining conditions, and providing suggestions)
Claim 19 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a location-based criterion that defines a geofence such that activation of the location-based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the second autonomous vehicle crossing the geofence. (defining criterion)
Claim 20 - the location-based teleassist trigger includes a location-based criterion that defines a predetermined location such that activation of the location-based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the second autonomous vehicle being within a predetermined distance from the predetermined location. (defining criterion)
These limitations are part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea because they merely define conditions or criterion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5 thru 9, 13 thru 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0109954 A1 in view of Tam Patent Application Number 2023/0137058 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Li et al teach the claimed method, “A method of map generation includes receiving data from a plurality of vehicles about environments within which the plurality of vehicles operate, and generating a three-dimensional map using the data from the plurality of vehicles” (abstract), comprising:
the claimed conducting a teleassist session with a first autonomous vehicle operating in an environment, “the data received by the remote server may be used for updating or maintaining a previously-stored 3D map. Alternatively, the data received by the remote server may be used for fusion with the previously-stored 3D map. In some instances, the results of fusion operations may include obtaining an updated version of the previously-stored 3D map or generating a completely new 3D map.” P[0316], “Upon collecting the data about the environment, the data can be used for navigation of the vehicle at 302. In some cases, the collected data can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specific destination. As an example, the collected data can be used for localization and mapping for the vehicle via a SLAM system, thereby guiding the vehicle to avoid one or more obstacles while traveling along a path.” P[0367], and “In addition to generating the 3D map or maintaining it, the remote server may also transmit information useful for navigation to the vehicle via the communication link, wherein the information can be derived from the 3D map. In an example, the information useful for navigation may comprise a subset of the 3D map within which the vehicle is operating and therefore the vehicle may use this subset of the 3D map as a local map for navigation or path planning.” P[0446],
the claimed exchanging situation data and teleassist operator input between the first autonomous vehicle and a remote teleassist system, “having been collected via one or more sensors on-board the vehicle, the data is transmitted to one or more processors off-board the vehicle for generating a 3D map at 303” (P[0371] and Figure 3), “at 201, data about environments within which a plurality of vehicles operate is received from the plurality of vehicles” (P[0344] and Figure 2), “at 202, a 3D map may be generated with aid of one or more processors using the data from the plurality of vehicles” P[0354], and “with aid of the label information from the remote server about this temporary object in the map, the vehicle may be instructed to reduce its current speed such that the pedestrian has enough time to cross the street, or stop a few seconds to let the pedestrian complete the crossing if necessary” P[0408];
the claimed communicating the location based teleassist trigger to a remote live map system to cause the remote live map system to forward the location based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle, “the 3D map can be used by a vehicle to update its previously-planned path. In some cases, if the 3D map has been updated by a vehicle A, a planned path of a vehicle B can be altered based on the updates made by the vehicle A to the previously-stored 3D map.” P[0359], “the data including the correct route may be transmitted via the 4G network to the vehicle, which then can update its current route and effect it immediately” P[0380], and “the information useful for navigation can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specified destination. … the remote server may transmit the information derived from the 3D map such that the vehicle may use the information to update its local map…can be provided using the SLAM system at the vehicle.” P[0447].
Li et al do not teach the claimed generating a location based teleassist trigger in association with the teleassist session. This action would be accomplished in Li et al by using the wireless links 104 and 105 between the vehicles 101, 102 and the remote server 103 (Figure 1), and the locations sensors (GPS) of Li et al already provides the location information to the remote server (Figure 3 steps 301 thru 303, and P[0363], P[0368]).
Tam teaches the claimed generating a location based teleassist trigger in association with the teleassist session, “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), the claimed location based teleassist trigger equates to the geofence area criteria, “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. Examples of different types and levels of the remote access 320 are described in FIG. 3. In one embodiment, the oversight server 140 may receive instructions from the remote operator 194 to grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. In this operation, the remote operator 194 may access and review the criteria 312 from user interface 146 of the oversight server 140 and/or user interface of the application server 190. The remote operator 194 may issue a command or instruction to the oversight server 140 to grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702, e.g., grant remote access 320 of the autonomous vehicle 702 to a third party 302.” (P[0224] and Figure 4), “The one or more criteria may include a geofence area. For example, when the disclosed system determines that the autonomous vehicle is within a geofence area, the disclosed system may grant a particular access to the autonomous vehicle.” P[0023], and “determine that one or more criteria apply to an autonomous vehicle, and grant various levels and/or types of remote access to the autonomous vehicle depending on a situation, where the various levels and/or types of remote access may include allowing inbound data transmission to the autonomous vehicle (e.g., from a third party, an oversight server, etc.), allowing outbound data transmission from the autonomous vehicle (e.g., to a service provider, law enforcement, client, etc.), manual operation of one or more components of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., a door, a window, a radio device, etc.), manual operation of the autonomous vehicle” P[0049].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Regarding claim 5 Li et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed first autonomous vehicle receiving from the remote live map system, observation data associated with observations collected from the environment and controlling the [first] autonomous vehicle using the received observation data, “the method comprising: collecting, with aid of one or more sensors on-board one of a plurality of vehicles, data about environments within which the plurality of vehicles are operating; transmitting the data to one or more processors off-board the vehicle for generating the three-dimensional map; receiving the three-dimensional map related data from the one or more processors off-board the vehicle; and applying the three-dimensional map related data for navigation of the vehicle” P[0260], and “receive the three-dimensional map related data from the one or more processors off-board the vehicle; and one or more processors on-board the vehicle configured to apply the three-dimensional map related data for navigation of the vehicle” P[0280].
Regarding claim 6 Li et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed selectively propagating observation data collected in association with the teleassist session to the remote live map system in response to teleassist operator input, “The confidence levels of the information from the multiple vehicles may be assessed and/or compared. The information with the higher confidence level may be used to contribute to the map.” P[0456], and “the remote server may select the data with the highest confidence measure for generating the portion of the three-dimensional map and may not use data with the lowest confidence measure for generating the same portion of the three-dimensional map” P[0459].
Regarding claim 7 Li et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed selectively modifying teleassist session data collected in association with the teleassist session in response to teleassist operator input, “the collected data may be used for updating or refining the 3D map at the remote server” P[0341], “if the 3D map has been updated by a vehicle A, a planned path of a vehicle B can be altered based on the updates made by the vehicle A to the previously-stored 3D map” P[0359], and “the remote server may determine some scenes have changed based on the received data, for example, barricades, accidents or repairs newly appearing in the scene. Therefore, the remote server may update the previously-stored map and also share these changes to other vehicles. For example, the remote server may transmit these updates or changes to other vehicles via the communication link 1011 for navigation or path planning.” P[0450], the update of the map sent to other vehicles for navigation equates to the claimed modifying teleassist session data.
Regarding claim 8 Li et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein:
the claimed communicating the location based teleassist trigger to the remote live map system causes the remote live map system to forward the location based teleassist trigger to a plurality of autonomous vehicle in a fleet of autonomous vehicles, “The map generation system herein may comprise a plurality of vehicle, such as vehicles 401, 402, and 403, which can be autonomous cars, semi-autonomous cars or manual-driving cars or a combination thereof.” (P[0381] and Figure 4), and “the remote server may determine some scenes have changed based on the received data, for example, barricades, accidents or repairs newly appearing in the scene. Therefore, the remote server may update the previously-stored map and also share these changes to other vehicles. For example, the remote server may transmit these updates or changes to other vehicles via the communication link 1011 for navigation or path planning.” P[0450].
Regarding claim 9 Li et al teach the claimed method, “A method of map generation includes receiving data from a plurality of vehicles about environments within which the plurality of vehicles operate, and generating a three-dimensional map using the data from the plurality of vehicles” (abstract), comprising:
the claimed receiving observation data associated with observations collected from an environment within which an autonomous vehicle operates from a remote live map system, “As illustrated in FIG. 3, at 301, data about an environment within which at least one of a plurality of vehicles is operating is collected. As previously noted, the data may be collected by one or more sensors on-board the vehicle. In some cases, the one or more sensors herein may be grouped as external sensors and internal sensors. The external sensors may be used for sensing and collecting data regarding the environment surrounding the vehicle and the internal sensors may be used for detecting and collecting data regarding the vehicles itself.” (P[0363] and Figure 3), “Upon collecting the data about the environment, the data can be used for navigation of the vehicle at 302. In some cases, the collected data can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specific destination. As an example, the collected data can be used for localization and mapping for the vehicle via a SLAM system, thereby guiding the vehicle to avoid one or more obstacles while traveling along a path.” P[0367], “having been collected via one or more sensors on-board the vehicle, the data is transmitted to one or more processors off-board the vehicle for generating a 3D map at 303” (P[0371] and Figure 3), “at 201, data about environments within which a plurality of vehicles operate is received from the plurality of vehicles” (P[0344] and Figure 2), “at 202, a 3D map may be generated with aid of one or more processors using the data from the plurality of vehicles” P[0354], “the data received by the remote server may be used for updating or maintaining a previously-stored 3D map. Alternatively, the data received by the remote server may be used for fusion with the previously-stored 3D map. In some instances, the results of fusion operations may include obtaining an updated version of the previously-stored 3D map or generating a completely new 3D map.” P[0316], and “In addition to generating the 3D map or maintaining it, the remote server may also transmit information useful for navigation to the vehicle via the communication link, wherein the information can be derived from the 3D map. In an example, the information useful for navigation may comprise a subset of the 3D map within which the vehicle is operating and therefore the vehicle may use this subset of the 3D map as a local map for navigation or path planning.” P[0446];
the claimed controlling the first autonomous vehicle using the observation data, “the 3D map can be used by a vehicle to update its previously-planned path. In some cases, if the 3D map has been updated by a vehicle A, a planned path of a vehicle B can be altered based on the updates made by the vehicle A to the previously-stored 3D map.” P[0359], “the data including the correct route may be transmitted via the 4G network to the vehicle, which then can update its current route and effect it immediately” P[0380], and “the information useful for navigation can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specified destination. … the remote server may transmit the information derived from the 3D map such that the vehicle may use the information to update its local map…can be provided using the SLAM system at the vehicle.” P[0447].
Li et al do not teach the claimed receiving a location based teleassist trigger generated in association with a teleassist session conducted between a remote teleassist system and a second autonomous vehicle, and the claimed determining activation of the location based teleassist trigger in response to determining that the first autonomous vehicle meets a location based criterion associated with the location based teleassist trigger. These actions would be accomplished in Li et al by using the wireless links 104 and 105 between the vehicles 101, 102 and the remote server 103 (Figure 1), and the locations sensors (GPS) of Li et al already provides the location information to the remote server (Figure 3 steps 301 thru 303, and P[0363], P[0368]).
Tam teaches the claimed receiving a location based teleassist trigger generated in association with a teleassist session conducted between a remote teleassist system and a second autonomous vehicle, “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), the claimed location based teleassist trigger equates to the geofence area criteria, “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. Examples of different types and levels of the remote access 320 are described in FIG. 3. In one embodiment, the oversight server 140 may receive instructions from the remote operator 194 to grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. In this operation, the remote operator 194 may access and review the criteria 312 from user interface 146 of the oversight server 140 and/or user interface of the application server 190. The remote operator 194 may issue a command or instruction to the oversight server 140 to grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702, e.g., grant remote access 320 of the autonomous vehicle 702 to a third party 302.” (P[0224] and Figure 4), “The one or more criteria may include a geofence area. For example, when the disclosed system determines that the autonomous vehicle is within a geofence area, the disclosed system may grant a particular access to the autonomous vehicle.” P[0023], and “determine that one or more criteria apply to an autonomous vehicle, and grant various levels and/or types of remote access to the autonomous vehicle depending on a situation, where the various levels and/or types of remote access may include allowing inbound data transmission to the autonomous vehicle (e.g., from a third party, an oversight server, etc.), allowing outbound data transmission from the autonomous vehicle (e.g., to a service provider, law enforcement, client, etc.), manual operation of one or more components of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., a door, a window, a radio device, etc.), manual operation of the autonomous vehicle” P[0049]; and
the claimed determining activation of the location based teleassist trigger in response to determining that the first autonomous vehicle meets a location based criterion associated with the location based teleassist trigger, “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4) (claimed determining activation of the location based teleassist trigger), and “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702.” (P[0224] and Figure 4) (claimed automatically initiate a teleassist session with a remote teleassist system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Regarding claim 13 Li et al teach the claimed method of claim 9 (see above). Li et al do not teach the claimed location based criterion defines a geofence and activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the first autonomous vehicle crossing the geofence. Tam teaches the claimed location based criterion defines a geofence, “The one or more criteria comprise at least one of a geofence area, a particular time window, and a credential received from a third party, where determining that the one or more criteria apply to the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part upon at least one of a location of the autonomous vehicle, a current time, and a credential received from a third party.” P[0030], and the claimed activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the first autonomous vehicle crossing the geofence, “determining whether the one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 may include determining whether the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314. For example, the oversight server 140 determines the location (e.g., GPS location) of the autonomous vehicle 702 from the sensor data 328. If the oversight server 140 determines that the location of the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314, the oversight server 140 determines that criteria 312 that indicates the geofence area 314 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702.” P[0202], “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), and “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702.” (P[0224] and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Regarding claim 14 Li et al teach the claimed method of claim 9 (see above). Li et al do not teach the claimed location based criterion defines a predetermined location and activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the first autonomous vehicle being within a predetermined distance from the predetermined location. Tam teaches the claimed location based criterion defines a predetermined location, “The one or more criteria comprise at least one of a geofence area, a particular time window, and a credential received from a third party, where determining that the one or more criteria apply to the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part upon at least one of a location of the autonomous vehicle, a current time, and a credential received from a third party.” P[0030], and “the geofence area 314 may form a boundary with a threshold distance around the autonomous vehicle 702. The geofence area 314 may correspond to a logical fence or a logical curtain around the boundary. For example, the threshold distance may be one foot, ten feet, twenty feet, or any other suitable distance.” P[0198], and the claimed activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the first autonomous vehicle being within a predetermined distance from the predetermined location, “the geofence area 314 may be associated with a particular place, such as a start location (e.g., a launch pad), a destination (e.g., a landing pad), a service provider terminal (e.g., service provider terminal 104 described in FIG. 1), a weigh station, a toll booth, a law enforcement inspection site, etc. In this manner, in this embodiment, the geofence area 314 may form a boundary around the particular place. For example, the geofence area 314 may correspond to a logical fence around the particular place.” P[0193], “determining whether the one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 may include determining whether the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314. For example, the oversight server 140 determines the location (e.g., GPS location) of the autonomous vehicle 702 from the sensor data 328. If the oversight server 140 determines that the location of the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314, the oversight server 140 determines that criteria 312 that indicates the geofence area 314 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702.” P[0202], “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), and “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702.” (P[0224] and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Regarding claim 15 Li et al teach the claimed system, map generation system 100 (Figure 1), comprising:
the claimed one or more processors, one or more processors on-board vehicle processors 1013 and 1023 (P[0334] and Figure 1), and the external device may be a remote server with one or more processors 1031 (P[0337] and Figure 1); and
the claimed memory storing instruction executed by the processors, “The one or more processors may form an on-board computer or controller. For instance, the vehicle may comprise an electronic control unit (ECU). The ECU may provide instructions for one or more activities of the vehicle, which may include, but are not limited to, propulsion, steering, braking, fuel regulation, battery level regulation, temperature, communications, sensing, or any other operations. The one or more processors may be or may comprise a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), field-programmable gate array (FPGA), digital signal processor (DSP) and so forth.” P[00340], and “The processing unit 1312 can have one or more processors, such as a programmable processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)). The processing unit 1312 can be operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium 1313. The non-transitory computer readable medium 1313 can store logic, code, and/or program instructions executable by the processing unit 1304 for performing one or more steps or functions as necessary for the operations of the system 1300, such as the steps shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. The non-transitory computer readable medium can include one or more memory units (e.g., removable media or external storage such as an SD card or random access memory (RAM)).” P[0472], to cause the system to:
the claimed maintain observation data associated with a plurality of observations collected by a plurality of autonomous vehicles operating in an environment, “at 201, data about environments within which a plurality of vehicles operate is received from the plurality of vehicles” (P[0344] and Figure 2), “at 202, a 3D map may be generated with aid of one or more processors using the data from the plurality of vehicles. In an example, the 3D map herein may be generated with aid of a remote server, such as the one discussed with reference to FIG. 1. In an implementation, the remote server may be a cloud server and thereby the generated 3D map can be stored in memory using a cloud computing infrastructure.” (P[0354] and Figure 2), and the vehicles may be autonomous cars P[0381];
the claimed communicate a portion of the observation data and location based teleassist trigger to a second autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles for use in controlling the second autonomous vehicle, “the 3D map can be used by a vehicle to update its previously-planned path. In some cases, if the 3D map has been updated by a vehicle A, a planned path of a vehicle B can be altered based on the updates made by the vehicle A to the previously-stored 3D map.” P[0359], “the data including the correct route may be transmitted via the 4G network to the vehicle, which then can update its current route and effect it immediately” P[0380], and “the information useful for navigation can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specified destination. … the remote server may transmit the information derived from the 3D map such that the vehicle may use the information to update its local map…can be provided using the SLAM system at the vehicle.” P[0447].
Li et al do not explicitly teach the claimed maintain a location based teleassist trigger generated in association with a teleassist session conducted between a remote teleassist system and a first autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles. This action would be accomplished in Li et al by using the wireless links 104 and 105 between the vehicles 101, 102 and the remote server 103 (Figure 1), and the locations sensors (GPS) of Li et al already provides the location information to the remote server (Figure 3 steps 301 thru 303, and P[0363], P[0368]).
Tam teaches the claimed maintain a location based teleassist trigger generated in association with a teleassist session conducted between a remote teleassist system and a first autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), the claimed location based teleassist trigger equates to the geofence area criteria, “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. Examples of different types and levels of the remote access 320 are described in FIG. 3. In one embodiment, the oversight server 140 may receive instructions from the remote operator 194 to grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. In this operation, the remote operator 194 may access and review the criteria 312 from user interface 146 of the oversight server 140 and/or user interface of the application server 190. The remote operator 194 may issue a command or instruction to the oversight server 140 to grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702, e.g., grant remote access 320 of the autonomous vehicle 702 to a third party 302.” (P[0224] and Figure 4), “The one or more criteria may include a geofence area. For example, when the disclosed system determines that the autonomous vehicle is within a geofence area, the disclosed system may grant a particular access to the autonomous vehicle.” P[0023], and “determine that one or more criteria apply to an autonomous vehicle, and grant various levels and/or types of remote access to the autonomous vehicle depending on a situation, where the various levels and/or types of remote access may include allowing inbound data transmission to the autonomous vehicle (e.g., from a third party, an oversight server, etc.), allowing outbound data transmission from the autonomous vehicle (e.g., to a service provider, law enforcement, client, etc.), manual operation of one or more components of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., a door, a window, a radio device, etc.), manual operation of the autonomous vehicle” P[0049].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Regarding claim 19 Li et al teach the claimed system of claim 15 (see above). Li et al do not teach the claimed location based criterion defines a geofence and activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the second autonomous vehicle crossing the geofence. Tam teaches the claimed location based criterion defines a geofence, “The one or more criteria comprise at least one of a geofence area, a particular time window, and a credential received from a third party, where determining that the one or more criteria apply to the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part upon at least one of a location of the autonomous vehicle, a current time, and a credential received from a third party.” P[0030], and the claimed activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the first autonomous vehicle crossing the geofence, “determining whether the one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 may include determining whether the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314. For example, the oversight server 140 determines the location (e.g., GPS location) of the autonomous vehicle 702 from the sensor data 328. If the oversight server 140 determines that the location of the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314, the oversight server 140 determines that criteria 312 that indicates the geofence area 314 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702.” P[0202], “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), and “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702.” (P[0224] and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Regarding claim 20 Li et al teach the claimed system of claim 15 (see above). Li et al do not teach the claimed location based criterion defines a predetermined location and activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the second autonomous vehicle being within a predetermined distance from the predetermined location. Tam teaches the claimed location based criterion defines a predetermined location, “The one or more criteria comprise at least one of a geofence area, a particular time window, and a credential received from a third party, where determining that the one or more criteria apply to the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part upon at least one of a location of the autonomous vehicle, a current time, and a credential received from a third party.” P[0030], and “the geofence area 314 may form a boundary with a threshold distance around the autonomous vehicle 702. The geofence area 314 may correspond to a logical fence or a logical curtain around the boundary. For example, the threshold distance may be one foot, ten feet, twenty feet, or any other suitable distance.” P[0198], and the claimed activation of the location based teleassist trigger occurs in response to the first autonomous vehicle being within a predetermined distance from the predetermined location, “the geofence area 314 may be associated with a particular place, such as a start location (e.g., a launch pad), a destination (e.g., a landing pad), a service provider terminal (e.g., service provider terminal 104 described in FIG. 1), a weigh station, a toll booth, a law enforcement inspection site, etc. In this manner, in this embodiment, the geofence area 314 may form a boundary around the particular place. For example, the geofence area 314 may correspond to a logical fence around the particular place.” P[0193], “determining whether the one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 may include determining whether the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314. For example, the oversight server 140 determines the location (e.g., GPS location) of the autonomous vehicle 702 from the sensor data 328. If the oversight server 140 determines that the location of the autonomous vehicle 702 is within the geofence area 314, the oversight server 140 determines that criteria 312 that indicates the geofence area 314 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702.” P[0202], “At operation 404, the oversight server 140 determines whether one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702 based on the sensor data 328. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316, and a credential 318 received from a third party 302.” (P[0222] and Figure 4), and “At operation 408, the oversight server 140 grants remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702.” (P[0224] and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al with the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce driving time and provide a safer driving experience (Tam P[0073]).
Claim(s) 2 thru 4, 10 thru 12 and 16 thru 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0109954 A1 and Tam Patent Application Number 2023/0137058 A1 as applied to claims 1, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Sharma et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0318133 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 16 Li et al and Tam teach the claimed method of claim 1 and the system of claim 15 (see above), wherein Li et al and Tam do not teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a session suggestion that selectively suggests automatic initiation of a teleassist session with the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle satisfies a location based criterion associated with the location based trigger.
Sharma et al teach, “At 804, the map authority server 600 can monitor the stream of map inputs received at block 802 in order to identify a group of map inputs within the stream of map inputs that satisfies a defined policy.” (P[0094] and Figure 8), “At 806, in response to identifying the group of map inputs within the stream of map inputs that satisfies the defined policy, the map authority server 600 can generate navigation advisory data representative of a navigation advisory, e.g., navigation advisory 676, wherein the navigation advisory 676 comprises a navigation advisory map location based on map locations corresponding to the group of map inputs. For example, with reference to FIG. 4, the example navigation advisory 610 comprises a navigation advisory map location based on map locations corresponding to the group of map inputs 402, 404, 406, and 408.” P[0095], “operation 902, which represents generating map overlay information, such as ASO update 212A, associated with a map location corresponding to a current position of the mobile subscriber device 221” (P[0101] and Figure 9), “At 906, the mobile subscriber device 221 can receive, from the shared overlay map service 210, navigation advisory data 214 representative of a navigation advisory that was generated using the map overlay information 212A and other map overlay information 212B, 212C, 212D from the other mobile subscriber devices 222, 223, 224.” P[0103], and “At 908, the mobile subscriber device 221 can adjust a planned route of the mobile subscriber device 221 in response to the receiving of the navigation advisory data at block 906. For example, a UGV 500 can recalculate its route to avoid a route blockage zone or an area of low wireless signal coverage.” P[0104].
When a route is blocked (Sharma et al Figure 4), the updated map is sent to unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) (equates to claimed autonomous vehicles) that are associated with a current position. The sending of the updated map based on a current position equates to the claimed selectively suggests automatic initiation of a teleassist session. The map updating for locations of Sharma et al would be combined with Li et al as part of the maps generated transmission to the plurality of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al and the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam with the updating of maps sent to vehicles based on the current locations of Sharma et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency, control, public safety and convenience (Sharma et al P[0004]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17 Li et al and Tam teach the claimed method of claim 1 and the system of claim 15 (see above), wherein Li et al and Tam do not teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a suggested action to be undertaken by the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle meets a location based criterion associated with the location based teleassist trigger.
Sharma et al teach, “operation 902, which represents generating map overlay information, such as ASO update 212A, associated with a map location corresponding to a current position of the mobile subscriber device 221” (P[0101] and Figure 9), “At 908, the mobile subscriber device 221 can adjust a planned route of the mobile subscriber device 221 in response to the receiving of the navigation advisory data at block 906.” (P[0104] and Figure 9), and “The navigation service 535 can be configured to recalculate routes for the UGV 500 in view of the received ASO 574, and the navigation service 535 can send recalculated routes and/or other navigation data 582 to the UGV 500.” P[0069]. The recalculated route sent to the vehicle equates to the claimed suggested action.
The map updating for locations and route recalculations of Sharma et al would be combined with Li et al as part of the maps generated transmission to the plurality of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al and the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam with the updating of maps sent to vehicles based on the current locations and recalculating routes of Sharma et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency, control, public safety and convenience (Sharma et al P[0004]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18 Li et al and Tam teach the claimed method of claim 1 and the system of claim 15 (see above), wherein Li et al and Tam do not teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a suggested path to be undertaken by the second autonomous vehicle when the second autonomous vehicle meets a location based criterion associated with the location based teleassist trigger.
Sharma et al teach, “operation 902, which represents generating map overlay information, such as ASO update 212A, associated with a map location corresponding to a current position of the mobile subscriber device 221” (P[0101] and Figure 9), “At 908, the mobile subscriber device 221 can adjust a planned route of the mobile subscriber device 221 in response to the receiving of the navigation advisory data at block 906.” (P[0104] and Figure 9), and “The navigation service 535 can be configured to recalculate routes for the UGV 500 in view of the received ASO 574, and the navigation service 535 can send recalculated routes and/or other navigation data 582 to the UGV 500.” P[0069]. The recalculated route sent to the vehicle equates to the claimed suggested path.
The map updating for locations and route recalculations of Sharma et al would be combined with Li et al as part of the maps generated transmission to the plurality of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al and the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam with the updating of maps sent to vehicles based on the current locations and recalculating routes of Sharma et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency, control, public safety and convenience (Sharma et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 10 Li et al and Tam teach the claimed method of claim 9 (see above), wherein Li et al and Tam do not teach the claimed teleassist session is a first teleassist session (merely a changed name), the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a session suggestion that selectively suggests automatic initiation of a second teleassist session, and the claimed automatically initiating the second teleassist session between the remote teleassist system and the first autonomous vehicle when the first autonomous vehicle meets the location based criterion associated with the location based trigger.
Sharma et al teach, “At 804, the map authority server 600 can monitor the stream of map inputs received at block 802 in order to identify a group of map inputs within the stream of map inputs that satisfies a defined policy.” (P[0094] and Figure 8), “At 806, in response to identifying the group of map inputs within the stream of map inputs that satisfies the defined policy, the map authority server 600 can generate navigation advisory data representative of a navigation advisory, e.g., navigation advisory 676, wherein the navigation advisory 676 comprises a navigation advisory map location based on map locations corresponding to the group of map inputs. For example, with reference to FIG. 4, the example navigation advisory 610 comprises a navigation advisory map location based on map locations corresponding to the group of map inputs 402, 404, 406, and 408.” P[0095], “operation 902, which represents generating map overlay information, such as ASO update 212A, associated with a map location corresponding to a current position of the mobile subscriber device 221” (P[0101] and Figure 9), “At 906, the mobile subscriber device 221 can receive, from the shared overlay map service 210, navigation advisory data 214 representative of a navigation advisory that was generated using the map overlay information 212A and other map overlay information 212B, 212C, 212D from the other mobile subscriber devices 222, 223, 224.” P[0103], and “At 908, the mobile subscriber device 221 can adjust a planned route of the mobile subscriber device 221 in response to the receiving of the navigation advisory data at block 906. For example, a UGV 500 can recalculate its route to avoid a route blockage zone or an area of low wireless signal coverage.” P[0104].
When a route is blocked (Sharma et al Figure 4), the updated map is sent to unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) (equates to claimed autonomous vehicles) that are associated with a current position. The sending of the updated map based on a current position equates to the claimed selectively suggests automatic initiation of a teleassist session. If another blockage area is reported by another vehicle, then there would be another update and recalculation of the route sent out to the vehicle(s) based on each of their locations. The map updating for locations of Sharma et al would be combined with Li et al as part of the maps generated transmission to the plurality of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al and the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam with the updating of maps sent to vehicles based on the current locations of Sharma et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency, control, public safety and convenience (Sharma et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 11 Li et al and Tam teach the claimed method of claim 9 (see above), wherein Li et al teach controlling the first autonomous vehicle based on the suggested action, vehicles may be operated using an autonomous driving system P[0365], and the collected data can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specific destination P[0367]. The autonomous driving and travel of the vehicle of Li et al would be used for the control of the vehicles of Sharma et al that receive recalculated routes for the UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles), to drive the recalculated routes.
Li et al and Tam do not teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a suggested action to be undertaken by the first autonomous vehicle.
Sharma et al teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a suggested action to be undertaken by the first autonomous vehicle, “operation 902, which represents generating map overlay information, such as ASO update 212A, associated with a map location corresponding to a current position of the mobile subscriber device 221” (P[0101] and Figure 9), “At 908, the mobile subscriber device 221 can adjust a planned route of the mobile subscriber device 221 in response to the receiving of the navigation advisory data at block 906.” (P[0104] and Figure 9), and “The navigation service 535 can be configured to recalculate routes for the UGV 500 in view of the received ASO 574, and the navigation service 535 can send recalculated routes and/or other navigation data 582 to the UGV 500.” P[0069]. The recalculated route sent to the vehicle equates to the claimed suggested action.
The map updating for locations and route recalculations of Sharma et al would be combined with Li et al as part of the maps generated transmission to the plurality of vehicles. The UGVs of Sharma et al would be the autonomous vehicles of Li et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al and the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam with the updating of maps sent to vehicles based on the current locations and recalculating routes of Sharma et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency, control, public safety and convenience (Sharma et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 12 Li et al, Tam and Sharma et al teach the claimed method of claims 9 and 11 (see above), wherein Li et al teach controlling the first autonomous vehicle based on the suggested path, vehicles may be operated using an autonomous driving system P[0365], and the collected data can be used by the vehicle to autonomously travel to a specific destination P[0367]. The autonomous driving and travel of the vehicle of Li et al would be used for the control of the vehicles of Sharma et al that receive recalculated routes for the UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles), to drive the recalculated routes.
Li et al and Tam do not teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a suggested path to be undertaken by the first autonomous vehicle.
Sharma et al teach the claimed location based teleassist trigger includes a suggested path to be undertaken by the first autonomous vehicle, “operation 902, which represents generating map overlay information, such as ASO update 212A, associated with a map location corresponding to a current position of the mobile subscriber device 221” (P[0101] and Figure 9), “At 908, the mobile subscriber device 221 can adjust a planned route of the mobile subscriber device 221 in response to the receiving of the navigation advisory data at block 906.” (P[0104] and Figure 9), and “The navigation service 535 can be configured to recalculate routes for the UGV 500 in view of the received ASO 574, and the navigation service 535 can send recalculated routes and/or other navigation data 582 to the UGV 500.” P[0069]. The recalculated route sent to the vehicle equates to the claimed suggested action.
The map updating for locations and route recalculations of Sharma et al would be combined with Li et al as part of the maps generated transmission to the plurality of vehicles. The UGVs of Sharma et al would be the autonomous vehicles of Li et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the map generation system of Li et al and the granting of access to the vehicle based on location in a geofence area of Tam with the updating of maps sent to vehicles based on the current locations and recalculating routes of Sharma et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency, control, public safety and convenience (Sharma et al P[0004]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 thru 5, 8 thru 12 and 15 thru 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 10 thru 16, 21 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,963 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are written much broader than the patented claims, and the claim limitations are recited in a different order. The patented claims include several additional limitations that are not recited in the pending claims, but the limitations of the pending claims are all included in the patented claim limitations.
Claims 1 thru 5, 8 thru 12 and 15 thru 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11 thru 14 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,706 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are written much broader than the patented claims, and the claim limitations are recited in a different order. The patented claims include several additional limitations that are not recited in the pending claims, but the limitations of the pending claims are all included in the patented claim limitations.
Related Art
The examiner points to Urano et al PGPub 2017/0122749 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Urano et al is directed to updating map information for different map zones when the vehicle is near the map zone, and recognizing the positions of the vehicles, the road environment, and the vehicle travel state (abstract and Figure 5B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662