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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description. 354 (Display) in Fig.3. (This was mentioned in the previous office action but has still not been addressed.)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objections to the specification have been addressed and are removed.
Claim Objections
The claim objections have been addressed and are removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under § 112b have been addressed and are removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1-3 and 5-6 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under § 103 is made in view of CN 117831321 A (Han et al., hence Han).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 with regards to the rejection of claim 7 under § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Altman does not apply because the sensed data is uploaded to an external AI unit. However, claim 7 simply states "the onboard control circuit is configured to determine whether to implement the remote operator command or the onboard operator command based at least in part on a machine learning model or artificial intelligence program." There is no indication that the machine learning model or artificial intelligence program must be on board the vehicle. Under BRI, claim 7 as it presently stands covers the case where the data is uploaded to a separate site for processing by an AI/MLM located at the separate site, which is what Altman states. If the AI/MLM is to be on board the vehicle, then the claim needs to be rewritten to include such a limitation to the metes and bounds of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 8 under §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO2019/032292 (Patel et al., hence Patel).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 9 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Patel.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 15 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Patel.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 16 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Patel.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 19 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Patel.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0116907 (Altman et al., hence Altman) in light of CN 117831321 A (Han et al., hence Han.)
As for claim 1, Altman teaches a vehicle control system, comprising: an onboard control circuit configured to implement commands for controlling movement of a vehicle, and the onboard control circuit is further configured to: (Altman: Fig. 1)
receive a remote operator command for controlling the movement of the vehicle from an offboard device (Atman: "Additionally or alternatively, the primary vehicle may comprise a tele-driving unit 130 or a remote-driving unit, or a tele-operation or remote-operation unit, which may enable a remote operator ( e.g., human, or computerized, or AI-based) to remotely drive or to remotely operate the primary vehicle 110 via wireless communication of driving commands and/or vehicular operation commands from a remote transmitter to the primary vehicle 110 or otherwise remotely intervene in its operation."[0014]);
receive an onboard operator command for controlling the movement of the vehicle from an onboard control interface (Altman: "Primary vehicle 110 may further comprise, optionally, an autonomous driving unit 120; which may analyze the sensed data, and may generate driving commands and cause their execution based on analysis of the sensed data."[0013]);
and determine whether to implement the remote operator command or the onboard operator command (Altman: This is known in the art: "command authority hierarchy": "For example, the Multiple Tele-Operator Handling Unit 147 may determine and/or perform and/or instruct one or more of the above-mentioned operations, such as, which data-streams or data-sets or data-segments to send to each one of multiple remote tele-operators; which remote tele-operator is better suited or is best suited to handle which particular situations or scenarios; which tele-operator or which tele-generated command would be the prevailing one in case of a conflict or inconsistency or anomaly or abnormality or contradiction or mismatch or duplication among decisions or commands or among expected results or among derived operations from two or more tele-operators..." [0076]).
Altman does not specifically teach a positive vehicle control system configured to: receive a positive control signal from offboard infrastructure; and responsive to receiving the positive control signal, cause the control circuit to implement a positive control command thereby overriding implementation of the remote operator command and the onboard operator command by the control circuit. However, Han teaches a positive vehicle control system (Han: this can be a combination of the road side end control equipment as well as the central control system on vehicle. See pg. 10.) configured to: receive a positive control signal from offboard infrastructure (Han: "When the vehicle 5 passes through the first road side end control device 1, a radio frequency transmitting unit on the vehicle 5 transmits a basic data instruction containing vehicle VIN code and driver information to the first road side end control device 1, the first road side end control device 1 analyzes the received data and then confirms that the vehicle 5 needs to speed limit, a speed limit instruction is transmitted to the vehicle 5," (pg. 10)); and responsive to receiving the positive control signal, cause the control circuit to implement a positive control command (Han: “…and a central controller of the vehicle 5 controls the speed limit of the vehicle 5 after receiving the instruction.” (pg. 10)).
Neither Altman nor Han explicitly mention overriding implementation of the remote operator command and the onboard operator command by the control circuit. However, Han implies an overriding implementation. Han is discussing using instructions from roadside units to implement a speed limit. Speed limits are regulatory limits which are expected to take precedence over either remote driving or on-board commands, and their priority would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the roadside unit speed limit system of Han into the system of Altman. The motivation would be to provide the additional service of automatically implementing local speed limits on the vehicle’s movement.
As for claim 2, Altman, as modified by Han, teaches wherein the remote operator command conflicts with the onboard operator command. (Altman: "...and/or to force the vehicle to be controlled by two or more means of control with a pre-defined order of priority ( e.g., the vehicle would perform the tele-driving command unless it is in conflict with a local autonomous driving command which would thus prevail and would be executed,"[0020])
As for claim 3, Altman, as modified by Han, teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is configured to determine whether to implement the remote operator command or the onboard operator command based at least in part on a control hierarchy. (Altman: Control hierarchy provided: "...and/or to force the vehicle to be controlled by two or more means of control with a pre-defined order of priority ( e.g., the vehicle would perform the tele-driving command unless it is in conflict with a local autonomous driving command which would thus prevail and would be executed,"[0020])
As for claim 5, Altman, as modified by Han, teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is further configured to control the movement of the vehicle based at least in part on a trip plan. (Altman: Any autonomous vehicle following a plan satisfies this; [0062] mentions planning a route and getting it signed off on.)
As for claim 6, Altman, as modified by Han, teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is further configured to transition from an onboard control state to an offboard control state based at least in part on an operating condition of the vehicle. (Altman: Moving to remote control mode: "Since the required bandwidth is sufficiently low, it may transmit it over any cellular or V2X connection continuously. Still, it may be enough for the remote teleoperator to take over the vehicle dynamic driving at any point in time at the latency (delay) of the transmission from the disengagement or of the event, rather than at the latency ( delay) of the transmission plus the latency (delay) of encoding or other processing of the sensory information. "[0060])
As for claim 7, Altman, as modified by Han, teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is configured to determine whether to implement the remote operator command or the onboard operator command based at least in part on a machine learning model or artificial intelligence program. (Altman: "In case communications conditions change, for example, the bandwidth drops below a threshold value or the video frames per second or resolution or details-in-the-image drop below threshold values, then the remote AI may alert the human tele-operator and hand the case over (e.g., back to the AI module). In case the communications conditions improve, or the critical obstacle that prevented the local or remote AI from handling case is removed or is traversed by the remote human tele-operator, then the situation may be handed over to the remote AI or to the in-vehicle AI." [0075] & Fig. 3)
Claims 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/032292 (Patel et al., hence Patel), and further in view of US 2024/0143705 (MacGregor et al., hence MacGregor).
As for claim 8, Patel teaches a vehicle control system (Patel: Fig. 2), comprising an offboard device (Patel: 2nd Comm Circuit 246 and 2nd Computing Circuit) and configured to: receive a remote control request (Patel: Fig. 3, “The automated driving system can communicate a handover request 322 (e.g., a message from the autonomous vehicle to initiate the handover process) to the teleoperation center 106 based on identifying the trigger.” [0048]) from an onboard control circuit of a [vehicle] (Patel: Fig. 2; “The first computing circuit 204 can further initiate the teleoperation process based on the current maneuvering parameters 120. In implementing the teleoperation process, the first communication circuit 206 can transmit and/or receive messages, such as request, the current maneuvering parameters 120, etc., to the teleoperation center 106.”[0038])
establish a communication link for remotely controlling a movement of the [vehicle] (Patel: “The second communication circuit 246 can further transmit to other devices, such as for transmitting the teleoperation commands 130 to the autonomous vehicle 102.”[0039].)
and transmit a remote operator command through the communication link to the onboard control circuit to control the movement of the vehicle. (Patel: “…a teleoperation commands 130 (e.g., from the teleoperation center 106 or a device therein to the autonomous vehicle 102)” [0021])
Patel does not specifically teach that the remote control request includes a credential, and that establishing the communication link is based at least in part on validating the credential. However, establishing a communication link using a credential for validation is known in the art, as is shown by MacGregor: (MacGregor: "The request may be validated, by the teleoperation computing system and/or by a validation component associated therewith. The validation component may, for example, be hosted on or associated with a network device connected with the fleet and/or the vehicle. The validation may be a first validation that confirms the request (e.g., acknowledges the request and/or sends a message back indicating that a request has been received), confirms a format of the request ( e.g., that the request conforms to a particular data layout and/or has all required information, which may comprise a cryptographically secure key), confirms request information such as mission information, confirms the source of the request (e.g., confirms the identity of the teleoperations system using a key, hash, cryptographic marker, or other identifiers), and confirms the request is valid to be sent to the vehicle."[0016])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the communication validation link as shown in MacGregor in the system of Patel. The motivation would be to make sure the communication link is secure.
As for claim 9, Patel, as modified by MacGregor, teaches wherein the offboard device (Patel: Fig.2 2nd Comm Circuit/2nd Computing Circuit) is further configured to:
receive a control challenge from the onboard control circuit (Under BRI, a “control challenge” can be a “request to change control” Patel: Fig. 3 shows a “handover request” coming from the autonomous vehicle into the teleoperation center);
and transmit a challenge response to the onboard control circuit to verify that remote control of the movement of the vehicle by the offboard device is enabled. (Patel: Fig. 3 shows a “handover confirmation” being sent back to the vehicle; "….the teleoperation center 106 can send a handover confirmation to the autonomous vehicle 102 and begin the teleoperation process." [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the communication validation link as shown in MacGregor in the system of Patel. The motivation would be to make sure the communication link is secure.
As for claim 14, Patel, as modified by MacGregor, teaches wherein the remote control request is based at least in part on a change in an operating condition of the vehicle detected by the onboard control circuit. (Patel: "For example, the automated driving system can determine the system status trigger 312 when the sensor data 122 of FIG. 1 (e.g., self-reported status from components or processes within the autonomous vehicle 102) indicate an issue or a malfunction at a systems level or a software/middleware level. The system status trigger 312 can correspond to system level conditions, such as sensor blindness (e.g., an object blocking the camera or a mechanical failure of the sensor circuit 2 10 of FIG. 2), overheating components (e.g., temperature sensor indicating overheating in the vehicle onboard servers), low tire pressure, etc."[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the communication validation link as shown in MacGregor in the system of Patel. The motivation would be to make sure the communication link is secure.
As for claim 15, Patel, as modified by MacGregor, teaches wherein the remote control request is responsive at least in part to a positive control signal. (Patel: "…the automated driving system can use the sensor data 122, the vehicle location 124, the context information 128, or a combination thereof to identify a trigger and initiate the handover to transfer the vehicle control from the [automated driving system 100 to the remote operator 108." [0024]; "In some embodiments, the automated driving system can generate oscillating results (e.g., a number of changes in upcoming maneuver or path, such as between following the preceding car and coming to a stop for the illustrated scenario, within a duration that falls within a threshold time period), which can be used as the handover trigger." [0025]. Note that a "positive control signal" is any signal which changes driving parameters of the vehicle. It does not necessarily mean that it is created by a human driver.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the communication validation link as shown in MacGregor in the system of Patel. The motivation would be to make sure the communication link is secure.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in light of MacGregor as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Altman.
As for claim 10, neither Patel nor MacGregor specifically teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is further configured to execute a determined set of instructions to resolve a conflict between onboard originated commands and offboard originated commands. However Altman teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is further configured to execute a determined set of instructions to resolve a conflict between onboard originated commands and offboard originated commands. (Altman: "...which tele-operator or which tele-generated command would be the prevailing one in case of a conflict or inconsistency or anomaly or abnormality or contradiction or mismatch or duplication among decisions or commands or among expected results or among derived operations from two or more tele-operators; and/or other suitable determinations or decisions, which may be performed based on a pre-defined set of rules, or based on a pre-defined lookup table of priority order, or by based on the certainty level that each one of the multiple sources ( of inconsistent commands) associates with its command ( e.g., selecting the command that has the highest level of certainty associated with it), or based on other considerations that the vehicular AI unit may utilize for this purpose." [0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the vehicle control system of Altman with the vehicle control system of Patel. The motivation would be to provide a mechanism by which, if both local and remote commands are generated, the vehicle control system can determine which one to follow.
As for claim 11, Patel, as modified by MacGregor and by Altman, teaches wherein the remote operator command slows or stops movement of the vehicle. (Altman: "If the received tele-operation commands are "metacommands" (or, commands that are generic in their nature or that are provided in a format that any vehicle can interpret, such as, "come to a complete stop within two seconds" or "accelerate right now to 60 mph"), or commands that may generate or initiate a sequence of operations in the vehicle, such as AI-based driving instructions, then the vehicular tele-driving processor 133 may distribute them to the relevant units or processor( s) (if not co-implemented) and such other units or processors then generate the actual driving and actuating commands to the vehicular mechanical systems or units."[0018].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the vehicle control system of Altman with the vehicle control system of Patel. The motivation would be to provide a mechanism by which, if both local and remote commands are generated, the vehicle control system can determine which one to follow.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in light of MacGregor as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Altman.
As for claim 13, neither Patel nor MacGregor teach wherein the offboard device is restricted or blocked from handover of vehicle control from the onboard control circuit if the vehicle is moving at or above a determined speed, is at or within a determined location, is not within a determined location, or is performing a determined action or activity. (Patel discusses conditions under which the handover will occur, but is less descriptive as to when it is forbidden). However, Altman teaches wherein the offboard device is restricted or blocked from handover of vehicle control from the onboard control circuit if the vehicle is moving at or above a determined speed, is at or within a determined location, is not within a determined location, or is performing a determined action or activity. (underlining added) (Altman: refusing a handoff to a tele-driver due to a high level of latency or problems in communication. See [0030],[0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine the vehicle control system of Altman with the vehicle control system of Patel. The motivation would be to include a definition of the circumstances under which a handover to teleoperations would not occur.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in light of MacGregor and in light of Altman as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2026/0035013 Al (Singh).
As for claim 12, neither Patel nor MacGregor nor Altman specifically teach wherein the remote operator command defers to an onboard control override signal. However, Singh teaches wherein the remote operator command defers to an onboard control override signal. (Singh: "In some embodiments, safety controller 202g is configured to generate control signals that take precedence over (e.g., overrides) control signals generated and/or transmitted by autonomous vehicle compute 202f" [0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to incorporate the generation of and safety signal override as described by Singh to the system of Patel, as modified by MacGregor and by Altman. The motivation would be to incorporate a safety override into the system.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in light of Patel and in light of MacGregor.
As for claim 16, Altman teaches an onboard control circuit for a vehicle (Altman: Fig. 1, system 100) configured to:
operate the vehicle based at least in part on a trip plan (Altman: "In some embodiments the in-vehicle or remote AI may plan a route…"[0062]);
detect an operating condition of the vehicle (Altman: "Primary vehicle 110 may comprise one or more sensors 111 which may be of one or more types and models, for example, imagers, cameras, microphones, image acquisition units, video acquisition units, distance detectors, LIDARs, proximity sensors, RADARs or the like; which are able to continually and/or intermittently sense the surrounding of the vehicle." [0010], note that under BRI, an “operating condition of the vehicle” can be sensing the surrounding of the vehicle);
establish a communication link with an the offboard [device] (Altman: "Additionally or alternatively, the primary vehicle may comprise a tele-driving unit 130 or a remote-driving unit, or a tele-operation or remote-operation unit, which may enable a remote operator ( e.g., human, or computerized, or AI-based) to remotely drive or to remotely operate the primary vehicle 110 via wireless communication of driving commands and/or vehicular operation commands from a remote transmitter to the primary vehicle 110 or otherwise remotely intervene in its operation."[0014];
and transition control of the vehicle from the onboard control circuit to the offboard device. (Altman: this is what happens when tele-operators take over. See previous clause.)
Altman does not specifically teach [to] transmit a remote control request to an offboard device based at least in part on detecting the operating condition. However, this is known in the art. Patel teaches [to] detect an operating condition of the vehicle (Patel: "For example, the automated driving system can determine the system status trigger 312 when the sensor data 122 of FIG. 1 (e.g., self-reported status from components or processes within the autonomous vehicle 102) indicate an issue or a malfunction at a systems level or a software/middleware level."[0046]); and [to] transmit a remote control request to an offboard device based at least in part on detecting the operating condition (Patel: "The automated driving system can communicate a handover request 322 (e.g., a message from the autonomous vehicle to initiate the handover process) to the teleoperation center 106 based on identifying the trigger."[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine together the handover request system of Patel and the autonomous driving system of Altman. The motivation would be to add the service of remote control as a backup driving method for an autonomous vehicle.
Altman does not specifically teach establish[ing] a communication link with an offboard device using a credential. However, this is known in the art, as is shown in MacGregor: (MacGregor: See Fig. 1; remote control request can include a credential, see [0016] which mentions use of a crypographically secure key.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add a security handshake, as outlined in MacGregor, to the initial communication between vehicle and offsite device, as shown in Altman. The motivation would be to improve security.
As for claim 19, Altman, as modified by Patel and MacGregor, teaches wherein the onboard control circuit (Patel: Fig.2 1st Comm Circuit/1st Computing Circuit) is configured: to transmit a control challenge to the offboard device (Under BRI, a “control challenge” can be a “request to change control.” Patel: Fig. 3 shows a “handover request” coming from the autonomous vehicle into the teleoperation center);
receive a challenge response from the offboard device; ((Patel: Fig. 3 shows a “handover confirmation” being sent back to the vehicle; "….the teleoperation center 106 can send a handover confirmation to the autonomous vehicle 102 and begin the teleoperation process." [0048])
verify the challenge response (Patel: Fig. 3. Since the return signal is labelled “handover confirmation” some form of verification can be considered to be included); and transition the control of the vehicle from the onboard control circuit to the offboard device based, at least in part, on verifying the challenge response. (Patel: [0048]-[0050] discusses several processes by which the control is transitioned over, with several examples of pre-handover preparatory actions (e.g. slowing down, pulling over) in order to facilitate the teleoperator’s job.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine together the handover request system of Patel and the autonomous driving system of Altman. The motivation would be to add the service of remote control as a backup driving method for an autonomous vehicle.
As for claim 20, Altman, as modified by Patel and by MacGregor, teach wherein the onboard control circuit is configured to determine whether to implement an onboard control command or a remote control command based, at least in part, on transitioning control of the vehicle from the onboard control circuit to the offboard device. (Altman: see [0020] which mentions all the different controls available to the Engagement/Disengagement Unit. Also see [0016], which explains the link between the Engagement/Disengagement Unit and the Tele-Operations Processor.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in light of Patel and in light of MacGregor as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2024/0142991 Al (Austria et al., hence Austria.)
As for claim 17, neither Altman nor Patel nor MacGregor specifically teach wherein the onboard control circuit is configured to transmit an image of an onboard operator, an audio recording of an onboard operator, or both an image and an audio recording of an onboard operator to the offboard device. However, Austria teaches wherein the onboard control circuit is configured to transmit an image of an onboard operator, an audio recording of an onboard operator, or both an image and an audio recording of an onboard [operator]. (Austria: "In some examples, the user interface may include a communication interface that enables the remote user to communicate with one or more occupants of the vehicle. For instance, the communication interface may enable the remote user to send messages to an occupant of the vehicle. The messages may include text messages that are sent to a device associated with the occupant ( e.g., a mobile device of the user, a display screen in the vehicle associated with a seating location of the occupant in the vehicle, etc.). Additionally, or alternatively, the messages may include audio messages (e.g., voice messages, pre-recorded voice messages, 2-way voice communication, etc.) that are communicated audibly using one or more audio output devices of the vehicle ( e.g., speakers)."[ 0019]; the main communication here is from the remote user to the onboard individuals, but communications in the reverse direction would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the communications between vehicle occupants and remote user using video and/or photo data to the standard communication data, as outlined in Altman. The motivation would be to add another type of communication.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in light of Patel in light of MacGregor as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of “Network Redundancy/Topology”, attached as NPL-Redundancy.pdf, henceforth “Redundancy”.
As for claim 18, neither Altman nor Patel nor MacGregor specifically teach [to] establish the communication link via a first communication channel; detect an operating condition related to the first communication channel; and establish the communication link via a second communication channel. However, this is known in the art, when a main (first) communication channel fails and the system transfers to a backup communications channel (See Redundancy, figure showing both network (communications) and server redundancy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine together the redundancy system of NPL-Redundancy and the system of Altman to provide an emergency backup communications link.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights