DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 dated 07/15/2026 are considered in the office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to 101 rejection the applicant argues that the claims are directed to technological solution for autonomous vehicle recertification. Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed system performs technological operations involving analysis of autonomous vehicle sensor data, communications with a network of recertifying computing devices, and automated recertification of the autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, "the specification sets forth an improvement in technology ... [and] the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. In the instant Application, the pending claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional activities at least with respect to the automated assessment of autonomous vehicle damage, repair coordination, and recertification of autonomous vehicles for on-road operation. Applicant respectfully submits that the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because the claimed invention recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with all the applicant’s assertions. The pending claim is simply determining the damage of the vehicle using the sensor data and arranging it repairs and getting it certified for on the road operation. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to analyze incident data or determine an incident response recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
In regard to 103 rejection, the amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection as disclosed in detail in the rejection section.
The examiner believes he has responded to all the arguments presented by the applicant at this time. However, if the applicant believes that the examiner has missed any arguments to respond, the applicant is invited to call the examiner directly to expedite the process.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12236726. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the invention claims the recertification process once the damage is done on the vehicle to make sure the vehicle is ready an safe for the further operations and hence would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art .
US12236726
Pending Application
1. A computer system comprising at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle, a plurality of recertifying computing devices, and a plurality of roadside assistance facilities computing devices, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from the at least one vehicle control system, incident data associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle;
determine a damage to the autonomous vehicle associated with the incident by analyzing the incident data;
generate, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation;
identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, (i) a recertifying party associated with at least one of the plurality of recertifying computing devices, the recertifying party eligible to carry out the required repairs on the autonomous vehicle, and (ii) a roadside assistance facility associated with at least one of the plurality of roadside assistance facilities computing devices, the roadside assistance facility identified to transport the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party;
receive recertification data from the at least one recertifying computing device;
determine, based upon the recertification data, that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle; and
recertify the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation based upon determining that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle.
8. A computer-implemented method implemented using a computer system including at least one computing device that includes at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle, a plurality of recertifying computing devices, and a plurality of roadside assistance facilities computing devices, the method comprising:
receiving, from the at least one vehicle control system, incident data associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle;
determining a damage to the autonomous vehicle associated with the incident by analyzing the incident data;
generating, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation;
identifying, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, (i) a recertifying party associated with at least one of the plurality of recertifying computing devices, the recertifying party eligible to carry out the required repairs on the autonomous vehicle, and (ii) a roadside assistance facility associated with at least one of the plurality of roadside assistance facilities computing devices, the roadside assistance facility identified to transport the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party;
receiving recertification data from the at least one recertifying computing device;
determining, based upon the recertification data, that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle; and
recertifying the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation based upon determining that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle.
1. A computer system comprising at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one recertifying computing device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident; generate, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation; identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party associated with the at least one recertifying computing device, the recertifying party eligible to carry out the required repairs on the autonomous vehicle; receive recertification data associated with the autonomous vehicle from the at least one recertifying computing device; and recertify, based upon the recertification data, the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation.
8. A computer-implemented method implemented using a computer system including at least one computing device that includes at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one recertifying computing device, the method comprising: determining a damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident; generating, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation; identifying, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party associated with the at least one recertifying computing device, the recertifying party eligible to carry out the required repairs on the autonomous vehicle; receiving recertification data associated with the autonomous vehicle from the at least one recertifying computing device; and recertifying, based upon the recertification data, the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation.
15. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computing device in communication with at least one vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle, a plurality of recertifying computing devices, and a plurality of roadside assistance facilities computing devices, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from the at least one vehicle control system, incident data associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle;
determine a damage to the autonomous vehicle associated with the incident by analyzing the incident data;
generate, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation;
identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, (i) a recertifying party associated with at least one of the plurality of recertifying computing devices, the recertifying party eligible to carry out the required repairs on the autonomous vehicle, and (ii) a roadside assistance facility associated with at least one of the plurality of roadside assistance facilities computing devices, the roadside assistance facility identified to transport the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party;
receive recertification data from the at least one recertifying computing device;
determine, based upon the recertification data, that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle; and
recertify the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation based upon determining that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle.
15. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of at least one computing device in communication with at least one recertifying computing device, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to: determine a damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident; generate, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation; identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party associated with the at least one recertifying computing device, the recertifying party eligible to carry out the required repairs on the autonomous vehicle; receive recertification data associated with the autonomous vehicle from the at least one recertifying computing device; and recertify, based upon the recertification data, the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to judicial exception involving abstract ideas, mental concepts without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system claim.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a method claim.
Claim 15-20 are CRM Claim.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong I of the 2019 Patent Examiner’s Guide (PEG) analyzes the claims to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls into one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
a) mathematical concepts
[Symbol font/0xB7] mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations
b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
[Symbol font/0xB7] fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
[Symbol font/0xB7] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
[Symbol font/0xB7] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
c) mental processes.
[Symbol font/0xB7] concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The following claims include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used to represent additional claims that merely elaborate on the recited abstract ideas for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
A computer system comprising at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one recertifying computing device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine an extent of damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident….autonomous vehicle.
generate, based upon the determined damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation;
identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party located nearby to the location of the autonomous vehicle and capable of performing the required repairs to repair the determined extent of damage, the recertifying party associated with at least one of the plurality of associated with the at least one recertifying computing devices;
receive recertification data associated with the autonomous vehicle from the at least one recertifying computing device; and
recertify, based upon the recertification data, the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation.
Claim 8 recites similar abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recited similar abstract ideas.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to analyze incident data or determine an incident response recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-14 and 16-20 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in Claim 1, 8 and 15.
Accordingly Claims 1-20 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong II of the 2019 PEG analyzes the claims to determine whether the claim recites any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following claims recite additional limitations:
Claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the following additional limitations: “computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device”
The examiner submits that the recited limitations, emphasized above, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, the additional limitation of “computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device” are examples of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the additional limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 are recited at a high level of generality, defined by function, such that the machine is not an integral part of the claim (MPEP § 2106.04(d).I.). The additional limitations do not:
• Reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – (MPEP § 2106.05(a))
• Apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
• Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – (MPEP § 2106.05(b))
• Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – (MPEP § 2106.05(c))
• Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – (MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claims 1, 8 and 15 but do not provide additional elements, and so do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Further, there are no additional limitation in claim 1, 11 and 20 and hence does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim).
Thus, claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regard to dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, similar abstract idea of…. communication between the vehicle and autonomous vehicle system is claimed.
In regard to dependent claims 3, 10 and 17, similar abstract idea of… identify, based upon the incident response and the location of the autonomous vehicle, a roadside assistance facility capable of transporting the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party; and electronically contact the identified roadside assistance facility to arrange transportation of the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party
In regard to dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, similar abstract idea of … at one processor is further configured to determine, based upon the recertification data, that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle.
In regard to dependent claims 5, 12 and 19, similar abstract idea of … recertify the autonomous vehicle based upon determining that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle
In regard to dependent claims 6, 13 and 20, similar abstract idea of … receive, from the at least one recertifying computing device, an updated blockchain including the recertification data, the recertification data including procedures performed on the autonomous vehicle; and store the updated blockchain in a recertification events database… which is merely applying distributed ledge technology as tools to perform an abstract idea.
In regard to dependent claims 7, and 14, similar abstract idea of … generate a block on a blockchain by creating a data structure including the incident data, damage data associated with the determined damage, repair data, and test data; and store the blockchain in a database… which is merely applying distributed ledge technology as tools to perform an abstract idea.
Hence Claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. (US 10,937,253) in view of Fields et al. (US10,007,263) and further in view of McClintic et al. (US 9355549) and herein after will be referred as Dey, Fields and McClintic respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Dey teaches a computer system comprising at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with a plurality of recertifying computing devices (Fig.7 #700), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
Dey also teaches receive recertification data associated with the autonomous vehicle from the at least one recertifying computing device; and recertify, based upon the recertification data, the autonomous vehicle for on-road operation (Col.6 Line 21-31: “The module may process the information and determine whether the sensor data indicates a repair is needed. A vehicle state maintenance module 114 and remote emission validator and certifier 116 may communicate with the vehicle change detector 118 to identify whether the repairs are needed, have been made and whether a validation 115 has occurred, such as a report or other certification. The agency making the repairs 122 may provide a repair report 127 once the validation has been made. The updated information may be stored in the blockchain 120.”).
Dey may not expressly teaches determine an extent of damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident, the incident data including sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the autonomous vehicle; generate, based upon the determined extent of damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation; identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party located nearby to the location of the autonomous vehicle and capable of performing the required repairs to repair the determined extent of damage, the recertifying party associated with the at least one of the plurality of recertifying computing devices.
Fields teaches determine an extent of damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident, the incident data including sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the autonomous vehicle (Fig.12 #1202; Col.28 L45-56 : “At block 1202 , the on - board computer 114 or server 140 may receive an indication of damage to the vehicle 108 . The indication may be received from a vehicle operator and / or insurance customer , and / or the indication may be automatically generated upon a determination of damage . For 50 example , the sensors 120 may provide sensor data to the on - board computer 114 that indicates a collision with another vehicle or other object . Alternatively , the substantially simultaneous disconnection and / or malfunction of a plurality of sensors 120 located in close proximity within the vehicle 108 may cause the on - board computer 114 to generate an indication of damage to the vehicle 108”);
Fields also teaches generate, based upon the determined extent of damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation (Fig.12 #1208 Col.29 Line 34-55: “At block 1208, the server 140 may determine one or more repairs associated with the determined damage to the vehicle 108. In some embodiments, the repairs may be determined based upon comparisons of information regarding previously repaired vehicles' damage and repairs. In further embodiments, the repairs may be determined based upon models and/or relationships between types of damage and types of repairs. The repairs may include replacing and/or fixing damage to one or more vehicle components, including the vehicle frame and body. In some embodiments, the repairs may include alternative likely repairs, such that performance of one repair may foreclose the necessity of another repair. For example, the operating data may indicate two or more probably types of damage, but only one type of damage may be present. Thus, repair of one type of likely damage would obviate the need to repair the other types of likely damage. In some embodiments, the repairs may include one or more general repair services and/or one or more specialty repair services. General repair services may be performed by most vehicle repair facilities, whereas specialty repair services may require specialized equipment, materials, and/or expertise to perform the repairs.”);
McClintic teaches identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party located nearby to the location of the autonomous vehicle and capable of performing the required repairs to repair the determined extent of damage, the recertifying party associated with the at least one of the plurality of recertifying computing devices (Fig 5 #510-530; Col.7 Line 22-38: “FIG. 5 illustrates a flow chart of a method 500 for performing a repair on a vehicle based on at least a route of travel and a repair facility location. At reference numeral 510, a geographic location of a vehicle and a route for the vehicle can be identified based on receipt of a request for a repair to perform on the vehicle. At reference numeral 520, at least one repair facility capable of performing the repair on the vehicle can be identified based at least on a distance of the repair facility to the vehicle. In another embodiment, at least one repair facility capable of performing the repair on the vehicle is identified based at least on one or more respective distances of the at least one repair facility to the vehicle. At reference numeral 530, at least one of the route to the to the vehicle (wherein the route is a route to a selected repair facility of the at least one identified repair facility) or an identification of the vehicle and the repair to be performed to the repair facility (e.g., selected repair facility) can be indicated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dey to incorporate the teachings of Fields and McClintic to include determine an extent of damage to an autonomous vehicle associated with an incident involving the autonomous vehicle by analyzing incident data associated with the incident, the incident data including sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the autonomous vehicle; generate, based upon the determined extent of damage, an incident response indicating required repairs for recertifying the autonomous vehicle for operation; identify, based upon the incident response and a location of the autonomous vehicle, a recertifying party located nearby to the location of the autonomous vehicle and capable of performing the required repairs to repair the determined extent of damage, the recertifying party associated with the at least one of the plurality of recertifying computing devices. Doing so would optimize record keeping and safety of the autonomous vehicle.
Similarly, Claims 8 and 15 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 2, Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Fields teaches the at least one processor is in communication with a vehicle control system associated with the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the vehicle control system, the incident data ( Fig.12 #1202 Col.28 Line 45-56: “At block 1202, the on-board computer 114 or server 140 may receive an indication of damage to the vehicle 108. The indication may be received from a vehicle operator and/or insurance customer, and/or the indication may be automatically generated upon a determination of damage. For example, the sensors 120 may provide sensor data to the on-board computer 114 that indicates a collision with another vehicle or other object. Alternatively, the substantially simultaneous disconnection and/or malfunction of a plurality of sensors 120 located in close proximity within the vehicle 108 may cause the on-board computer 114 to generate an indication of damage to the vehicle 108.”).
Similarly Claims 9 and 16 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 4, Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Dey teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine, based upon the recertification data, that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle (Col.12 Line 33-61: “”).
Similarly Claims 11 and 18 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 5, Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Dey teaches the at least one processor is further configured to recertify the autonomous vehicle based upon determining that the required repairs were performed on the autonomous vehicle (Col. 9 Line 10-16: “”).
Similarly, claims 12 and 19 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 6, Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Dey teaches the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the at least one recertifying computing device, an updated blockchain including the recertification data, the recertification data including procedures performed on the autonomous vehicle; and store the updated blockchain in a recertification events database (Col.6 Line 21-31: “”).
Similarly, claims 13 and 20 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 7, Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Dey teaches the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a block on a blockchain by creating a data structure including the incident data, damage data associated with the determined extent of damage, repair data, and test data; and store the blockchain in a database (Fig.4).
Similarly Claims 14 is rejected.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic and in further view of Shah et al. (US 10,553,119 B1) and herein after will be referred as Shah respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, Dey in view of Fields and in further view of McClintic teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Shah further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to: identify, based upon the incident response and the location of the autonomous vehicle, a roadside assistance facility capable of transporting the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party; and electronically contact the identified roadside assistance facility to arrange transportation of the autonomous vehicle to the recertifying party (Col.16 Line 23-47: “At step 514, the roadside assistance server 201 may receive the roadside assistance request and, based on the request, may identify the requesting application. For instance, the roadside assistance request may contain an application identifier (e.g., a number) that the roadside assistance server 201 may use to identify the requesting application. At step 515, the roadside assistance server 201 may determine locations of service providers that are able to provide roadside assistance. For instance, the roadside assistance server 201 may communicate with a map service server to determine roadside service companies that are within a threshold distance of the user's or vehicle's location. At step 517, roadside assistance server 201 may determine the estimated time of arrival of the service providers to the service requester's location. For instance, based on a current location of the user or vehicle in need of assistance, the system may determine a distance from the location of each service provider and may calculate a time to travel between the respective location of the service provider and the user. At step 519, roadside assistance server 201 may select a service provider based on the estimated times of arrival determined in step 517. For instance, determined estimated arrival times may be ranked or prioritized and the service provider with the earliest estimated arrival time may be selected.”).
Similarly Claims 10 and 17 are rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights