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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on January 16, 2025. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the election/restriction requirement in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claims 9 and 10 should be part of Group I rather than Group II. Examiner is persuaded and has amended the groups as such. Additionally, general traversal of the requirement is noted. This is not found persuasive because there are no specific arguments as to the traversal to consider.
The amended requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As Group I has been elected, claims 1-6 and 9-10 stand presented for examination, and claims 7-8 and 11-12 stand withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on April 1, 2025 and December 26, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for JP2017-160878 dated August 24, 2017, JP2017-170095 dated September 5, 2017, and JP2018-079977 dated April 18, 2018.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time
Additionally, Applicant’s request for priority to the parent applications App. No. 16/052,128 dated August 1, 2018, App. No. 17/178,893 dated February 18, 2021, and App. No. 18/208,605 dated June 12, 2023 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
Parent applications App. No. 16/052,128 dated August 1, 2018, App. No. 17/178,893 dated February 18, 2021, and App. No. 18/208,605 are being monitored during prosecution for potential double patenting. No double patenting rejections are required at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0113470 (hereinafter, “Iagnemma”; previously of record in the IDS dated April 1, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Iagnemma discloses A method comprising:
acquiring a present location of an autonomous vehicle and a target stopping location at which the autonomous vehicle is to stop (see at least Fig. 1, [0004], and [0015]-[0016]; the stopping place (i.e., target stopping location) relative to the vehicle location is determined);
determining, based on the present location and the target stopping location, whether to move the autonomous vehicle after arrival at the target stopping location in an autonomous mode or a remote operation mode (see at least [0148]; it may be determined whether a tele-operator is needed at the target stopping location after reaching the target stopping location); and
performing a movement operation within a predetermined range with respect to the target stopping location in accordance with an instruction issued by a user while the user is outside of the autonomous vehicle when the remote operation mode is determined to control a movement of the autonomous vehicle from the target stopping location (see at least [0148]; the tele-operator may control the AV until it is at a position which autonomous mode may be engaged. The range may be considered the region in which tele-operation is determined to be needed).
Regarding claim 2, Iagnemma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Iagnemma discloses wherein the remote operation mode is determined to move the autonomous vehicle when a distance between the present location and the target stopping location is less than a predetermined value (see at least [0148]; the determining may be performed at the stopping location. Examiner notes that the threshold is anything greater than zero and the distance is zero).
Regarding claim 3, Iagnemma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Iagnemma discloses wherein the remote operation mode is determined to move the autonomous vehicle when a required time from the present location to the target stopping location is less than a predetermined value (see at least [0016]; if the vehicle is not stopped within a predetermined amount of time (predetermined value) relative to the specified amount of time (i.e., required amount of time), the vehicle may then be controlled from a remote location).
Regarding claim 4, Iagnemma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Iagnemma discloses further comprising:
transmitting vehicle state information to a terminal of the user, the vehicle state information includes at least one selected among peripheral environment information outside of the autonomous vehicle obtained from sensing data, a speed of the autonomous vehicle, and a steering angle of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0147]; the tele-operation may be a human operator (i.e., terminal of a user) which receives vehicle sate information including position, speed, orientation, acceleration, braking, steering, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Iagnemma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Iagnemma discloses wherein the determining is performed when the present location is within a predetermined distance of the target stopping location (see at least [0148]; the determining may be performed at the stopping location), and
the remote operation mode is determined to move the autonomous vehicle when the present location of the autonomous vehicle is where the user is not able to take luggage out of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0147]; remote operation may be implemented if the vehicle is stopped outside the stopping place. Examiner notes that outside the stopping space is likewise necessarily outside the space where the user may interact with the vehicle for any reason).
Regarding claim 9, Iagnemma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Iagnemma discloses An autonomous vehicle (see at least [0019] and the publication generally) comprising:
a processor (see at least [0010]); and
a memory having recorded thereon a program for causing the processor to execute the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0032] and the citations pertaining to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Iagnemma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Iagnemma discloses A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a processor to execute the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0010] and [0032] and the citations pertaining to claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim but may be found allowable if re-written in independent form, including all intervening claims. Examiner will provide explicit reasons for allowability after one or more claims is found to be in a state of allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights