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 communication is in response to application No. 19/110,625 filed on 11 March 2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-15 have been rejected as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 August 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim priority for foreign applications GB2213343.3, filed on 13 September 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, “…a vehicle-agnostic information…” should read --…vehicle-agnostic information…--;, The same language is recited in claims 10, 13 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, and claim 14 is directed to an apparatus, and claim 15 is a method. Therefore, claims 1, 13, 14 and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 13, 14 and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A system for providing output to a user of a remote device, the system comprising:
a remote device; and
a processor assembly comprising:
a first processor adapted to be provided at a first vehicle, the first processor configured to:
receive data related to the first vehicle;
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information;
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device;and
a second processor adapted to be provided at a second vehicle,
the second processor configured to:
receive data related to the second vehicle;
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information;
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device,
wherein the remote device is configured to receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly and provide an output to the user based on said information, such that the remote device is operable to provide output to a user without processing data related to the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “process the data...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for controlling a vehicle via a control system comprising:
A system for providing output to a user of a remote device, the system comprising:
a remote device; and
a processor assembly comprising:
a first processor adapted to be provided at a first vehicle, the first processor configured to:
receive data related to the first vehicle;
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information;
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device;and
a second processor adapted to be provided at a second vehicle,
the second processor configured to:
receive data related to the second vehicle;
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information;
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device,
wherein the remote device is configured to receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly and provide an output to the user based on said information, such that the remote device is operable to provide output to a user without processing data related to the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving...,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The “providing… information and …output” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the processing... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “providing… information and …output” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving..” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Furthermore, the limitations of “providing… information and …output” are understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d
1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Devassy (US12067869B2) in view of Barrett (US20140121891A1).
Regarding claim 1, Devassy discloses a remote device; and (see at least Devassy [column 31 lines 60-62]; "For instance, client station 602 may take the form of a smartphone, a tablet, a desktop computer, a laptop, a netbook, and/or a PDA, among other possibilities.") Devassy describes multiple remote devices compatible.
a processor assembly comprising: (see at least Devassy [column 23, lines 23-24]; "the processor of on-board computing system 502 may comprise one or more processor components,") Devassy outlines an on board processor assembly.
A first processor adapted to be provided at a first vehicle, the first processor configured to: (see at least Devassy [column 23, lines 23-24]; "the processor of on-board computing system 502 may comprise one or more processor components,") Devassy describes a first processor for the first vehicle.
receive data related to the first vehicle; (See at least [column 1, lines 36-37]; "a first set of sensor data captured by a first sensor system of a first vehicle, ") Devassy describes a first processor as part of the on-board computing system receiving data from the sensor on the vehicle.
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 44-47]; "based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first sensor system, deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of a source-agnostic coordinate frame") Devassy outlines processing the data to derive an agnostic version of the vehicle information.
a second processor adapted to be provided at a second vehicle, the second processor configured to: (see at least Devassy [column 23, lines 23-24]; "the processor of on-board computing system 502 may comprise one or more processor components,") Devassy describes an on vehicle processor, which would be a second processor located on a second vehicle.
receive data related to the second vehicle; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 40-41]; " a second set of sensor data captured by a second sensor system of a second vehicle, ") Devassy outlines data compiled from the second vehicle.
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 23-24]; "based on the second set of sensor data captured by the second sensor system, deriving a second trajectory for the second vehicle that is defined in terms of the source-agnostic coordinate frame") Devassy teaches processing the data from the second vehicle to derive vehicle-agnostic information.
Devassy does not explicitly disclose provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device; provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device, wherein the remote device is configured to receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly and provide an output to the user based on said information, such that the remote device is operable to provide output to a user without processing data related to the vehicle.
However, Barrett teaches provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device;and (see at least Barret [0012]; " The data signal is converted from the automobile-specific format to a general mobile device format defined by an API. The data signal formatted in the mobile device format is wirelessly transmitted to the specific automobile-agnostic mobile device.") Barret describes communicating agnostic data from the vehicle to the remote device.
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device, (see at least Barret [0012]; " The data signal is converted from the automobile-specific format to a general mobile device format defined by an API. The data signal formatted in the mobile device format is wirelessly transmitted to the specific automobile-agnostic mobile device.") Barret teaches providing agnostic data to a remote device.
wherein the remote device is configured to receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly and provide an output to the user based on said information, such that the remote device is operable to provide output to a user without processing data related to the vehicle. (see at least Barret [0008]; "In one example embodiment, an automobile user can use a mobile device to communicate with the CAN bus and Electronic Control Units (ECUs) associated therewith. The data signals generated or received on the CAN bus may be further received at the mobile device and then processed at the mobile device in a variety of mobile device applications. Write signals may also be transmitted from the mobile device to the CAN bus to control or alter various components of the automobile.") Barret teaches a remote device receiving vehicle agnostic information from the vehicle processor to provide output to a user with the mobile device with vehicle agnostic information.
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches providing vehicle agnostic information to a remote device and then output to the user, in order to provide information for the user without having to consider other factors.
Regarding claim 2, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devassy discloses wherein the data related to the vehicle is autonomy condition. (see at least Devassy [columns 22-23, lines 67-2]; " one possible use of the derived source-agnostic trajectories is to facilitate autonomous operation of a vehicle.")
Regarding claim 3, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devasy discloses wherein the data is provided by a safety system of the vehicle. -(see at least Devassy [column 33, lines 25-33]; " As yet another example, a transportation request from client station 602 of transportation requestor 603 may include preferences information for transportation requestor 603, examples of which may include vehicle-operation preferences (e.g., safety comfort level, preferred speed, rates of acceleration or deceleration, safety distance from other vehicles when traveling at various speeds, route, etc.), entertainment preferences (e.g., preferred music genre or playlist, audio volume, display brightness, etc.), temperature preferences, and/or any other suitable information.")
Regarding claim 4, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devasy discloses ,wherein the output provided by the remote device comprises a first kind of output. (see at least Devassy [column 34, lines 41-46]; " Although not shown, computing platform 700 may additionally include one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces that are configured to either (i) receive and/or capture information at computing platform 700 and (ii) output information to a client station (e.g., for presentation to a user). ")
Regarding claim 6, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devasy discloses wherein one or both of the first vehicle or second vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (AV). (see at least Devassy [column 22, lines 13-15]; "an on-board computing system 502 that is configured to perform functions related to autonomous operation of vehicle 500 ")
Regarding claim 10, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Barrett discloses wherein the remote device comprises:a controller configured to: process a user input at the remote device; and (see at least Barrett [0095]; "Example peripheral interfaces 544 include a serial interface controller 554 or a parallel interface controller 556, which may be configured to communicate with external devices such as input devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc.) or other peripheral devices (e.g., printer, scanner, etc.) via one or more I/O ports 558.")
provide a vehicle-agnostic information based on the user input to the processor assembly. (see at least Barrett [0011]; "The transceiver is configured to receive a wireless write signal originating at a specific automobile-agnostic mobile device application. The write signal is formatted in a mobile device format. The API is configured to convert the write signal from the mobile device format to an automobile-specific format appropriate for a particular make and model of automobile. Additionally, the controller is configured to communicate the write signal formatted in the automobile-specific format through a CAN bus of the automobile to alter a condition of an automotive component.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches providing vehicle agnostic information based on the user input to the processor assembly in order to provide direction from the user for the vehicle to execute.
Regarding claim 11, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Barrett discloses wherein the processor assembly is configured to:receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device; and (see at least Barrett [0012]; "The data signal formatted in the mobile device format is wirelessly transmitted to the specific automobile-agnostic mobile device.")
process an input related to the vehicle based on the vehicle-ag, nostic information from the remote device. (see a least [0024]; " Additionally, a user of the mobile device can send a write signal from the mobile device through the abstraction device to the CAN bus. The write signal enables the user of the mobile device to alter the state of one or more components included in the automobile")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches the vehicle receiving vehicle agnostic information from the remote device and process the input in order to be able to execute the desired function from the user.
Regarding claim 13, Devassy teaches a first processor adapted to be provided at a first vehicle, the first processor configured to:receive data related to the first vehicle; (see at least Devassy [column 23, lines 23-24]; "the processor of on-board computing system 502 may comprise one or more processor components,")
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 44-47]; "based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first sensor system, deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of a source-agnostic coordinate frame")
a second processor adapted to be provided at a second vehicle, the second processor configured to: (see at least Devassy [column 23, lines 23-24]; "the processor of on-board computing system 502 may comprise one or more processor components,")
receive data related to the second vehicle; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 40-41]; " a second set of sensor data captured by a second sensor system of a second vehicle, ")
process the data to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 49-52]; " a second set of sensor data captured by a second sensor system of a second vehicle, ")
Devassy does not explicitly disclose A processor assembly for a system for providing output to a user of a remote device configured to receive vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly and provide an output to the user based said information, the processor assembly comprising, provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device; and provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device.
However, Barrett teaches A processor assembly for a system for providing output to a user of a remote device configured to receive vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly and provide an output to the user based said information, the processor assembly comprising:(see at least Barret [0008]; "In one example embodiment, an automobile user can use a mobile device to communicate with the CAN bus and Electronic Control Units (ECUs) associated therewith. The data signals generated or received on the CAN bus may be further received at the mobile device and then processed at the mobile device in a variety of mobile device applications. Write signals may also be transmitted from the mobile device to the CAN bus to control or alter various components of the automobile.")
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device; and (see at least Barret [0012]; " The data signal is converted from the automobile-specific format to a general mobile device format defined by an API. The data signal formatted in the mobile device format is wirelessly transmitted to the specific automobile-agnostic mobile device.")
provide the vehicle-agnostic information to the remote device. (see at least Barret [0012]; " The data signal is converted from the automobile-specific format to a general mobile device format defined by an API. The data signal formatted in the mobile device format is wirelessly transmitted to the specific automobile-agnostic mobile device.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches providing vehicle agnostic information to a remote device and then output to the user, in order to provide information for the user without having to consider other factors.
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Devassy in view of Barrett as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Dolgov (US20210125427A1).
Regarding claim 5, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devasy discloses wherein the output provided by the remote device comprises a second kind of output, (see at least Devassy [column 34, lines 41-46]; " Although not shown, computing platform 700 may additionally include one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces that are configured to either (i) receive and/or capture information at computing platform 700 and (ii) output information to a client station (e.g., for presentation to a user). ")
Devassy does not explicitly disclose the second kind requesting user input.
However, Dolgov teaches the second kind requesting user input. (see at least Dolgov [106]; "To enable the human operator to provide input relating to the environment data, and thereby effectively respond to the request for remote assistance, the remote computing system may include an interface for receiving input, such as a keyboard, touchscreen, mouse, touchpad, microphone, etc")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Dolgov which teaches requesting user input in order for the vehicle to receive remote assistance when necessary.
Regarding claim 7, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devassy does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vehicle and second vehicle are different vehicle types.
However, Dolgov teaches wherein the first vehicle and second vehicle are different vehicle types. (See at least Dolgov [0063]; "Although vehicle 200 is depicted in FIG. 2 as a car, vehicle 200 can have other configurations within examples, such as a truck, a van, a semi-trailer truck, a motorcycle, a golf cart, an off-road vehicle, or a farm vehicle, among other possible examples.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Dolgov which teaches the first vehicle and second vehicle being different vehicle types in order for a plurality of vehicle platforms to be compatible.
Regarding claim 8, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devassy does not explicitly disclose , wherein the vehicle type is an on-road AV or an off-road AV.
However, Dolgov teaches wherein the vehicle type is an on-road AV or an off-road AV. (see at least Dolgov [0056, 0063]; " Such information may be used by vehicle 100 and computer system 112 during the operation of vehicle 100 in the autonomous, semi-autonomous, and/or manual modes…Although vehicle 200 is depicted in FIG. 2 as a car, vehicle 200 can have other configurations within examples, such as a truck, a van, a semi-trailer truck, a motorcycle, a golf cart, an off-road vehicle, or a farm vehicle, among other possible examples.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Dolgov which teaches the first vehicle and second vehicle being different vehicle types in order for a plurality of vehicle platforms to be compatible.
Regarding claim 9, Devassy and Barrett, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Devassy does not explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises one or both of: one or more on-road AVs .
However, Dolgov teaches wherein the system comprises one or both of: one or more on-road AVs . (see at least Dolgov [0056, 0063]; " Such information may be used by vehicle 100 and computer system 112 during the operation of vehicle 100 in the autonomous, semi-autonomous, and/or manual modes…Although vehicle 200 is depicted in FIG. 2 as a car, vehicle 200 can have other configurations within examples, such as a truck, a van, a semi-trailer truck, a motorcycle, a golf cart, an off-road vehicle, or a farm vehicle, among other possible examples.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Dolgov which teaches the first vehicle and second vehicle being different vehicle types in order for a plurality of vehicle platforms to be compatible.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Devassy in view of Barrett as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Weidner (US20140188305A1).
Regarding claim 12, Barrett teaches the remote device is configured to:process a user input; and (see at least Barret [0008]; "In one example embodiment, an automobile user can use a mobile device to communicate with the CAN bus and Electronic Control Units (ECUs) associated therewith. The data signals generated or received on the CAN bus may be further received at the mobile device and then processed at the mobile device in a variety of mobile device applications.)
provide a vehicle-agnostic information based on the user input to the processor assembly; and (see at least Barret [0054, 0053]; "The API call 132A may be an integrated portion of the mobile device application 106 and may allow a user of the mobile device 102 to request data signals from the automobile 104… Accordingly, the mobile device application 106 may be automobile-agnostic.")
process an input related to the first vehicle based on the vehicle- agnostic information from the remote device; and (see at least Barret [0024] Additionally, a user of the mobile device can send a write signal from the mobile device through the abstraction device to the CAN bus. The write signal enables the user of the mobile device to alter the state of one or more components included in the automobile.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches providing vehicle agnostic information based on the user input and process an input based on the vehicle information in order to provide information for the user without having to consider other factors.
Barrett does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the processor assembly:the first processor is configured to:receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device; the second processor is configured to:receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device;process an input related to the second vehicle based on the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device; such that the remote device is operable to provide information to the vehicle without processing the user input based on the vehicle
However, Weidner teaches wherein, in the processor assembly:the first processor is configured to:receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device; (See at least Weidner [0008]; "There is a method for hardware-agnostic communication between one or more mobile data terminals (MDT) used for monitoring and controlling one or more TIV inputs or outputs (TIVIO) of transit industry vehicles, and one or more vehicle logic units (VLU) located on transit industry vehicles (TIV), that are capable of communicating with one or more TIVIO, comprising requesting, by an MDT application executed by a processor on a first MDT, communication with a first VLU on a first TIV, accepting, by a VLU application executed by a processor on the first VLU,")
the second processor is configured to:receive the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device;process an input related to the second vehicle based on the vehicle-agnostic information from the remote device, (see at least Weidner [0017]; "The requesting, processing and monitoring may be done by a first MDT communicating with a first VLU and a second VLU, and the accepting and providing may both be done by both the first VLU and the second VL")
such that the remote device is operable to provide information to the vehicle without processing the user input based on the vehicle. (see at least Weidner [0018] There is further a system for hardware-agnostic communication between one or more mobile data terminals (MDT) used for monitoring and controlling one or more TIV inputs or outputs (TIVIO) of transit industry vehicles (TIV),")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches receiving vehicle agnostic information from the remote device and processing an input related to the information so that the remote device can provide information to the vehicle without processing user input in order to bypass the need for the user for safety features of autonomous settings.
Regarding claim 14, Barrett teaches A remote device for a system for providing output to a user of the remote device, wherein the remote device is configured to receive vehicle-agnostic information from a processor assembly and provide an output to the user based on said information, (see at least Barret [0008]; "In one example embodiment, an automobile user can use a mobile device to communicate with the CAN bus and Electronic Control Units (ECUs) associated therewith. The data signals generated or received on the CAN bus may be further received at the mobile device and then processed at the mobile device in a variety of mobile device applications. Write signals may also be transmitted from the mobile device to the CAN bus to control or alter various components of the automobile.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches receiving agnostic information and providing output to the user in order for the user to be able to make determinations on the information provided.
Barrett does not explicitly teach such that the remote device is operable to provide output to a user without processing data related to a vehicle.
However, Weidner teaches such that the remote device is operable to provide output to a user without processing data related to a vehicle. (see at least Weidner [0018] There is further a system for hardware-agnostic communication between one or more mobile data terminals (MDT) used for monitoring and controlling one or more TIV inputs or outputs (TIVIO) of transit industry vehicles (TIV),")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Weidner which teaches the remote device providing output to a user without processing data related to a vehicle in order to provide information for the user without having to consider other factors.
Regarding claim 15, Devassy teaches receiving data related to a first vehicle at a first processor of a processor assembly, the first processor adapted to be provided at the first vehicle; (see at least Devassy [column 23, lines 23-24]; "the processor of on-board computing system 502 may comprise one or more processor components,")
processing the data at the first processor to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 44-47]; "based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first sensor system, deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of a source-agnostic coordinate frame")
receiving data related to a second vehicle at a second processor of the processor assembly, the second processor adapted to be provided at the second vehicle; (see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 40-41]; " a second set of sensor data captured by a second sensor system of a second vehicle, ")
processing the data at the second processor to obtain a vehicle-agnostic information;(see at least Devassy [column 1, lines 23-24]; "based on the second set of sensor data captured by the second sensor system, deriving a second trajectory for the second vehicle that is defined in terms of the source-agnostic coordinate frame")
Devassy does not explicitly teach providing the vehicle-agnostic information from the first processor to the remote device; providing the vehicle-agnostic information from the second processor to the remote device; receiving the vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly; and providing an output to the user based on the vehicle-agnostic information.
However, Barrett teaches providing the vehicle-agnostic information from the second processor to the remote device; (see at least Barret [0012]; " The data signal is converted from the automobile-specific format to a general mobile device format defined by an API. The data signal formatted in the mobile device format is wirelessly transmitted to the specific automobile-agnostic mobile device.")
receiving the vehicle-agnostic information from the processor assembly; and providing an output to the user based on the vehicle-agnostic information.(see at least Barret [0008]; "In one example embodiment, an automobile user can use a mobile device to communicate with the CAN bus and Electronic Control Units (ECUs) associated therewith. The data signals generated or received on the CAN bus may be further received at the mobile device and then processed at the mobile device in a variety of mobile device applications. Write signals may also be transmitted from the mobile device to the CAN bus to control or alter various components of the automobile.")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Barrett which teaches providing vehicle agnostic information from the processor to the remote device and receiving the vehicle agnostic information from the processor assembly and providing an output to the user based on the information in order for the user to be able to make a decision for the vehicle based on the information provided.
Devassy and Barrett, in combination, do not explicitly teach providing the vehicle-agnostic information from the first processor to the remote device.
However, Weidner teaches providing the vehicle-agnostic information from the first processor to the remote device; (See at least Weidner [0008]; "There is a method for hardware-agnostic communication between one or more mobile data terminals (MDT) used for monitoring and controlling one or more TIV inputs or outputs (TIVIO) of transit industry vehicles, and one or more vehicle logic units (VLU) located on transit industry vehicles (TIV), that are capable of communicating with one or more TIVIO, comprising requesting, by an MDT application executed by a processor on a first MDT, communication with a first VLU on a first TIV, accepting, by a VLU application executed by a processor on the first VLU,")
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 Devassy to incorporate teachings of Weidner which teaches providing the vehicle agnostic information from the first processor to the remote device in order for the device to pass on information to the user relating to the first vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA VICTORIA HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 5712724896. 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.
/HANA VICTORIA HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights