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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2025 is considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on December 8, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 20, 35-37, and 39 have been amended. Claims 40-42 were added. No claims were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7512485) in view of Azar (U.S. Patent No. 9785146) and further in view of Navarro, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200089239).
Regarding claim 20, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: An apparatus comprising at least one processor; (Col. 3, lines 30-31: "Processor (202) [processor]")
and at least one memory including computer program code; (Col. 3, lines 30-31: "Processor (202) [processor]" ; Col. 3, lines 58-62: "Instructions for the operating system, the object-oriented programming system, and applications or programs are located on storage devices, such as hard disk drive (226), and may be loaded into main memory (204) [memory including computer code]")
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: (Col. 4, lines 25-29: "The processes of the present invention are performed [cause the apparatus to perform] by processor (202) using computer implemented instructions [computer program code], which may be located in a memory such as, for example, main memory (204), memory (224) [memory]")
obtain a navigation path between two locations which are separated by an obstacle, the navigation path comprising an original vertex; (Fig. 3, Col. 4, lines 30-36: "…FIG. 3 depicts a typical path routing problem [navigation path] […] path is defined as a starting point and ending point [two locations], with a list of all the vertices the path goes through. S is the path starting point. E is the path end point. Obstacles 1-5 [separated by obstacle] all present potential routing problems when determining the path between S and E.")
modify the navigation path to comprise a displaced vertex and two or more waypoints, wherein (i) the displaced vertex is displaced from the original vertex in a direction away from a part of the obstacle which is nearest to the original vertex; (Fig. 8, Col. 5, lines 55-66: "…Path (810) is the original path as calculated using Dijkstra's Algorithm. Path (812) represents the proposed offset path from A to 3. Obstacles (602) and (606) have been deformed to show the offset area (820) through which the three paths, A to 3, B to 2, and C to 1 will pass [modification of navigation path containing multiple waypoints]. Line (814) represents the change between the original and deformed locations of the vertex at obstacle (602) [displaced vertex]. The area between paths (810) and (812) represents the segment offset region (830) [displaced in direction away from obstacle nearest original vertex].")
and (ii) the two or more waypoints are located on the navigation path as modified and are not located on the navigation path that was obtained, (Fig. 13, Col. 9, lines 21-27: "FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a modified, topologically sorted, offset and rebuilt paths, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. FIG. 13 shows the three paths, A to 3, B to 2, and C to 1 routed through the same set of obstacles (602), (604), and (606), from FIG. 6, as they would appear after having been offset, modified for new intersections, topologically sorted and rebuilt [waypoints are located on new navigation path and not original navigation path].")
wherein a change in an orientation of the navigation path that was obtained over the original vertex is equal to a change in an orientation of the navigation path as modified over the displaced vertex (Col. 5, lines 30-40: "In a preferred embodiment, the corner of the polygonal obstacle is extended by the total offset amount, which is based on how many paths go through that corners vertex plus a constant. For example, if the offset amount was to be four 4 pixels, or what ever units are used, and 4 paths go through the vertex in question, then that vertex would be extended by sixteen pixels [offset distance method ensures that changes in orientation relative to original and displaced vertex are equal to each other by specific rate]. […] In alternate embodiments, the total offset amount […] might be simply a constant amount [offset distance can be equal constant value].").
Hudson, Jr. does not teach for a vehicle to travel; and smooth a section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints, wherein the smoothing of the section forms a curved path section in the navigation path, the curved path section coming no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: for a vehicle to travel ("…a system is provided for generating a maneuver on a propagated route for an unmanned vehicle from a series of waypoints [vehicle travel].")
and smooth a section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints, wherein the smoothing of the section forms a curved path section in the navigation path, the curved path section coming no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 33-44: "…FIG. 3, a quartic rational Bezier curve (40) is used to provide a maneuver associated with three waypoints, W1-W3, for an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) [smooth section of navigation path which passes through displaced vertex with curved section and multiple waypoints]. […] system (20) selects five control points, P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4, and their corresponding scalar weights to ensure that a smooth curve with appropriate properties, arbitrary placement relative to the second waypoint, and kinematic and dynamic properties appropriate to the UAV [curved path section coming no closer to obstacle than original vertex].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
The combination of Hudson, Jr. and Azar does not teach based on a size of a vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle.
In a similar field of endeavor (generating a vehicle path around obstacles), Navarro, et al. teaches: based on a size of a vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle (Paragraph [0087]: "vii) Polygons are inflated in order to consider a safety distance [safety threshold around obstacle]. The vehicle's volume is taken into account by such distance [size of vehicle], along with other parameters and safety considerations (e.g., maximum turn radius of a vehicle, distortion factors due to Earth's sphericity, minimum required lateral separation, etc.) [specific additional examples of safety thresholds].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar to include the teaching of Navarro, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating conflict-free lateral paths in the presence of obstacles (Navarro, et al. Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 21, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein the curved path section makes its closest approach to the obstacle at a position of the original vertex (Azar Fig. 3, Col. 4, line 67 to Col. 5, lines 1-4: "…extremum point of the rational Bezier curve occurs halfway through the expected duration and along a median of a triangle defined by a given waypoint of the series of waypoints [curved path section makes closest approach to obstacle at position of original vertex]").
Regarding claim 22, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein the navigation path comprises a sequence of desired positions which enable a continuous motion that connects the two locations (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65: "…determining control points [desired positions] and scalar weights for quartic and higher order rational Bezier curves for use in planning continuous maneuvers having an arbitrary relationship to an intersecting waypoint [continuous motion between two locations].").
Regarding claim 23, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein, prior to the modification, the navigation path comprises a substantially shortest path between the two location while avoiding collision with the obstacle (Hudson, Jr. et al. Col. 4, lines 45-51: "…the shortest path must be found. Dijkstra's Algorithm is then used to find an initial shortest path. FIG. 5 is a diagram of a shortest path, as determined by Dijkstra’s Algorithm. Path (502) is the shortest path from starting point S to endpoint E that avoids obstacles 1-5, as determined by Dijkstra’s Algorithm [substantially shortest path between two locations - avoiding obstacle].").
Regarding claim 24, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein a distance between the displaced vertex and the part of the obstacle which is nearest to the original vertex is greater than a distance between the original vertex and the part of the obstacle which is nearest to the original vertex, (Hudson, Jr. et al. Col. 4, lines 55-64: "…Once an unknown obstacle is encountered, stop and queue that obstacle. If a known obstacle is encountered, throw out the segment [displaced vertex]. Then, generate segments for the next queues obstacle [identifying obstacle]. Repeat the process with each segment [original vertex]. In another embodiment, an assumption is made that the solution will consist of a path that is only a certain percentage longer than the straight line distance between the starting and ending points [distance between displaced vertex and obstacle is greater than distance between original vertex and obstacle].")
and the original vertex is intermediate to the displaced vertex and the part of the obstacle which is nearest to the original vertex (Hudson, Jr. et al. Col. 9, lines 9-20: "…Iterate over the paths in order and offset their bendpoints at each vertex. For vertices labeled IN [obstacle is on right side], offset the paths starting closest to the vertex. For vertices labeled out [obstacle is on left side], offset the paths starting at the furthest point from the vertex. The furthest point is already know and is based on how many paths went through that vertex. For all paths that were split into subpaths and subpaths that were re-split into additional subpaths, rebuild the original path using a bottom up reassembly of the constituent pieces [original vertex is intermediate to displaced vertex and part of obstacle nearest original vertex].").
Regarding claim 25, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein adjacent segments being angled relative to each other, the reflex angle between the adjacent segments being smaller than the reflex angle of the navigation path over the displaced vertex (Col. 6, lines 37-44: "…vertices have been labeled, it is possible to compare any two paths which pass through the same vertex. A path goes through the vertex when it has two segments containing that vertex. The angle at which the segments meet will determine the comparison [adjacent segments being angled relative to each other]. The path containing the smaller angle precedes (that is, it should be offset prior to) the path with a larger angle [reflex angle between adjacent segments being smaller than reflex angle of navigation path over displaced vertex].").
Hudson, Jr. et al. does not teach the smoothing of the section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex comprises converting the section into three or more segments.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: the smoothing of the section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex comprises converting the section into three or more segments (Col. 7, lines 33-40: "…generating a maneuver on a propagated route for an unmanned air vehicle from a series of waypoints and at least one parameter representing constraints on the propagated route of the unmanned vehicle. At (52), scalar weights are determined for a set of N+1 control points from the at least one parameter. In accordance with an aspect of the invention, N is an integer greater than three [converting displaced vertex section into three or more segments].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
Regarding claim 26, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 25, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the curved path section comprises the three or more segments (Azar Col. 4, lines 28-35: "…curve generation component (24) is configured to determine respective positions for each of a set of N + 1 control points Nth for a rational Bezier curve of order from at least the series of waypoints and the at least one parameter. In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, N is an integer greater than three [curved path section comprises three or more segments].").
Regarding claim 27, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein the magnitude of the displacement of the displaced vertex from the original vertex is dependent on a turn angle and on for the turn angle (Col. 6, lines 37-44: "…A path goes through the vertex when it has two segments containing that vertex. The angle at which the segments meet will determine the comparison. The path containing the smaller angle precedes (that is, it should be offset prior to) the path with a larger angle. If the angles are equal, no comparison can be made [turn angle constraints].").
Hudson, Jr. does not teach linear and angular speed constraints.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: linear and angular speed constraints (Col. 5, lines 24-30: "…transfer time interval can be uniquely found from the initial speed that is, the speed at the start of the maneuver and the scalar weights. Similarly, the position, velocity, acceleration, and curvature profiles will be readily computed from the control points and the scalar weights and provided to the vehicle control [speed constraints based on angular curvature].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
Regarding claim 28, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein the navigation path, prior to modification, comprises a plurality of original vertices (Hudson, Jr. et al. Col. 4, lines 30-36: "…path is defined as a starting point and ending point, with a list of all the vertices the path goes through. S is the path starting point. E is the path end point [plurality of original vertices - prior to modification].").
Regarding claim 29, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 28, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 28, wherein the navigation path is modified to comprise a quantity of displaced vertices which is less than the plurality of original vertices (Hudson, Jr. et al. Col. 5, lines 25-26: "…creating an offset region for each segment between two vertices [displaced vertices less than plurality of original vertices].").
Regarding claim 30, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 28, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 28, wherein the navigation path is modified to comprise a plurality of displaced vertices, ones of the plurality of displaced vertices being displaced from respective ones of the plurality of original vertices (Hudson, Jr. et al. Col. 6, lines 19-23: "…Path (840) represents the modified path between starting point A and endpoint (3), taking into account all obstacles in the path and the offset for all other paths passing through the same vertices [plurality of displaced vertices displaced from plurality of original vertices].").
Regarding claim 31, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 30, and in a further embodiment, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: An apparatus as claimed in claim 30, wherein: a first of the plurality of displaced vertices is displaced from a first of the plurality of original vertices in a direction away from a part of the obstacle which is nearest to the first of the plurality of original vertices, (Col. 10, lines 30-33: "…vertex's obstacle is to the right side of the revised or adjusted path, the vertex will be labeled IN, or, if the revised or adjusted path is inverted, the vertex will be labeled OUT [displaced vertex is displaced from original vertex in direction away from part of obstacle which is nearest to original first vertex].")
a second of the plurality of displaced vertices is displaced from a second of the plurality of original vertices in a direction away from a part of the obstacle which is nearest to the second of the plurality of original vertices (Col. 10, lines 33-37: "…vertex's obstacle is to the left side of the revised or adjusted path, the vertex will be labeled OUT, or, if the revised or adjusted path is inverted, the vertex will be labeled IN [displaced second vertex is displaced from original second vertex in direction away from part of obstacle which is nearest to original second vertex].").
Hudson, Jr. does not teach and a section of the navigation path which passes via both the first and second of the plurality of displaced vertices is smoothed in order to form the curved path section in the navigation path.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: and a section of the navigation path which passes via both the first and second of the plurality of displaced vertices is smoothed in order to form the curved path section in the navigation path (Col. 4, lines 28-35: "Once the waypoints and parameters have been received, they are provided to a curve generation component (24). The curve generation component (24) is configured to determine respective positions for each of a set of N + 1 control points Nth for a rational Bezier curve of order from at least the series of waypoints and the at least one parameter. In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, N is an integer greater than three [first and second plurality of displaced vertices is smoothed to create curve navigation path].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
Regarding claim 32, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein the displaced vertex is displaced along an angle bisector of a section of the navigation path over the original vertex (Azar Col. 6, lines 27-32: "…Bezier curve would be symmetric about waypoint, W2, and both P(1/2) and P2 [original vertex] would lie on a median line (which in this case is also the bisector [bisector]) connecting waypoint, W2 [displaced vertex], and the midpoint of the base P0-P4 of the isosceles triangle defined by the points P0, W2, and P4 [angled relationship].").
Regarding claim 33, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 32, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 32, wherein the section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints begins at a first waypoint of the two or more waypoints and ends at a second waypoint of the two or more waypoints, (Azar Col. 4, lines 41-48: "…curve generation component (24) is configured to determine the positions for each of the first and the second control points to lie on a line segment between a first waypoint and a second waypoint of the series of waypoints and to determine the positions of each of the Nth control point and the (N+1)st control point to lie on a line segment between a penultimate waypoint and a final waypoint of the series of waypoints [navigation path which passes through displaced vertex starts at first waypoint and ends at second waypoint].")
the first waypoint being at an intersection of the navigation path leading to the displaced vertex with a perpendicular to the angle bisector of the section of the navigation path over the original vertex, (Azar Col. 6, lines 27-32: "…Bezier curve would be symmetric about waypoint, W2, and both P(1/2) and P2 would lie on a median line (which in this case is also the bisector) connecting waypoint, W2, and the midpoint of the base P0-P4 of the isosceles triangle defined by the points P0, W2, and P4 [first waypoint being at intersection of navigation path leading to displaced vertex with perpendicular angle bisector of path section over original vertex].")
the second waypoint being at an intersection of the navigation path leading from the displaced vertex with the perpendicular to the angle bisector of the section of the navigation path over the original vertex, (Azar Col. 6, lines 36-39: "…W3 can be selected such that P(1/2) lies along the median of the triangle defined by P0, W2, and P4 and the maximum point of the Bezier curve can still occur at P(1/2) [first waypoint being at intersection of navigation path leading to displaced vertex with perpendicular angle bisector of path section over original vertex].")
the perpendicular to the angle bisector intersecting the angle bisector at a displacement from the original vertex which is equal and opposite to the displacement of the displaced vertex from the original vertex (Azar Col. 7, lines 40-46: "…scalar weights are determined such that a extremum point of the rational Bezier curve occurs halfway through the expected duration and along a median of a triangle defined by a given waypoint of the series of waypoints, a first control point of the set of N+1 control points, and a final control point of the set of N+1 control points [perpendicular relationship with respect to equal angle bisectors with respect to original and displaced vertex].").
Regarding claim 34, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein avoids a collision with a second obstacle (Col. 6, lines 19-23: "…Path (840) represents the modified path between starting point A and endpoint (3), taking into account all obstacles in the path and the offset for all other paths passing through the same vertices [avoids collision with second obstacle].").
Hudson, Jr. does not teach the displaced vertex is displaced in a direction such that, when the section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex is smoothed, the curved path section.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: the displaced vertex is displaced in a direction such that, when the section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex is smoothed, the curved path section (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 33-44: "…FIG. 3, a quartic rational Bezier curve (40) is used to provide a maneuver associated with three waypoints, W1-W3, for an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) [smooth section of navigation path which passes through displaced vertex with curved section]. […] system (20) selects five control points, P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4, and their corresponding scalar weights to ensure that a smooth curve with appropriate properties, arbitrary placement relative to the second waypoint, and kinematic and dynamic properties appropriate to the UAV [curved path section].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
Regarding claim 35, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: A vehicle control system comprising the apparatus of claim 20, the navigation path being for controlling motion of the vehicle (Azar Col. 5, lines 21-24: "…generate a maneuver from the positions for the set of N+1 control points and the scalar weights [navigation path] and provide it to a control system (34) of the unmanned vehicle [controlling motion of a vehicle].").
Regarding claim 36, Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar remain as applied to claim 35, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle comprising the vehicle control system of claim 35 (Azar Col. 5, lines 30-32: "…planned maneuver can be quickly and efficiently provided to the vehicle [vehicle] for execution by the control system (34) [control system].").
Regarding claim 37, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: A method comprising: obtaining a navigation path between two locations which are separated by an obstacle, the navigation path comprising an original vertex; (Steps (1134-1140), Col. 7, lines 46-52: "…vertex V is unlabeled (a yes output to step 1134), then determine if vertex V's obstacle is on the right side of path P (step 1136). If the obstacle is on the right side of path P(a yes output to step 1136), then determine if path P in inverted (step 1138). If path P is not inverted (a no output to step 1138), then set V.LABELED equals IN (step 1140) [navigation path between two locations separated by obstacle with original vertex].")
modifying the navigation path to comprise a displaced vertex and two or more waypoints, wherein (i) the displaced vertex is displaced from the original vertex in a direction away from a part of the obstacle which is nearest to the original vertex (Steps (1162-1164), Col. 8, lines 18-28: "…divide path P into two subpaths at this vertex V. Path P is divided into two paths at this vertex, so that the new subpath contains the new vertex as its second vertex, the previous vertex is its starting point and path P now terminates at this vertex (step 1162). The two subpaths overlap, meaning they share a common segment, containing two vertices. The newly created subpath contains all the remaining vertices of the original path P. This new subpath is then pushed to the top of STACK so that it will be labeled next (step 1164) [comprising displaced vertex from original vertex in direction away from obstacle nearest original vertex].")
and (ii) the two or more waypoints are located on the navigation path as modified and are not located on the navigation path that was obtained, (Fig. 13, Col. 9, lines 21-27: "FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a modified, topologically sorted, offset and rebuilt paths, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. FIG. 13 shows the three paths, A to 3, B to 2, and C to 1 routed through the same set of obstacles (602), (604), and (606), from FIG. 6, as they would appear after having been offset, modified for new intersections, topologically sorted and rebuilt [waypoints are located on new navigation path and not original navigation path].")
wherein a change in an orientation of the navigation path that was obtained over the original vertex is equal to a change in an orientation of the navigation path as modified over the displaced vertex (Col. 5, lines 30-40: "In a preferred embodiment, the corner of the polygonal obstacle is extended by the total offset amount, which is based on how many paths go through that corners vertex plus a constant. For example, if the offset amount was to be four 4 pixels, or what ever units are used, and 4 paths go through the vertex in question, then that vertex would be extended by sixteen pixels [offset distance method ensures that changes in orientation relative to original and displaced vertex are equal to each other by specific rate]. […] In alternate embodiments, the total offset amount […] might be simply a constant amount [offset distance can be equal constant value].").
Hudson, Jr. does not teach for a vehicle to travel; and smoothing a section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints, wherein the smoothing of the section forms a curved path section in the navigation path, the curved path section coming no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: for a vehicle to travel (Col. 1, lines 51-53: "…a method is provided for generating a maneuver on a propagated route for an unmanned vehicle from a series of waypoints [vehicle travel method]")
and smoothing a section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints, wherein the smoothing of the section forms a curved path section in the navigation path, the curved path section coming no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex (Fig. 3, Step (54), Col. 7, lines 57-65: "…one implementation, the parameters includes a desired distance between an extremum of the curve and a given waypoint of the series of waypoints, and the position of at least one control point can be determined from at least the desired distance between the extremum of the curve and the given waypoint [relationship between displaced vertex and original vertex relative to obstacle - curved path section]."; Step (56), Col. 8, lines 14-18: "…set of points representing the rational Bezier curve is determined from the set of N+1 control points and the scalar weights. Effectively, the set of Bezier curve points can be determined to represent the position of the vehicle at each time in the time interval associated with the maneuver [determination of smoothed curve path sections].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
The combination of Hudson, Jr. and Azar does not teach based on a size of a vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle.
In a similar field of endeavor (generating a vehicle path around obstacles), Navarro, et al. teaches: based on the size of the vehicle and safety threshold around the obstacle (Paragraph [0087]: "vii) Polygons are inflated in order to consider a safety distance [safety threshold around obstacle]. The vehicle's volume is taken into account by such distance [size of vehicle], along with other parameters and safety considerations (e.g., maximum turn radius of a vehicle, distortion factors due to Earth's sphericity, minimum required lateral separation, etc.) [specific additional examples of safety thresholds].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar to include the teaching of Navarro, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating conflict-free lateral paths in the presence of obstacles (Navarro, et al. Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 38, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 37, and in a further embodiment, teach: A method of claim 37, wherein the curved path section makes its closest approach to the obstacle at a position of the original vertex (Azar Fig. 3, Col. 4, line 67 to Col. 5, lines 1-4: "In one implementation, the weight generation component (26) is configured to determine the scalar weights such that a extremum point of the rational Bezier curve occurs halfway through the expected duration and along a median of a triangle defined by a given waypoint of the series of waypoints [curved path section makes closest approach to obstacle at position of original vertex]").
Regarding claim 39, Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions stored thereon for performing at least the following: (Col. 9, lines 31-44: "processes of the present invention are capable of being distributed in the form of a computer readable medium of instructions [computer readable medium comprising instructions] […] Examples of computer readable media include recordable-type media, such as a floppy disk, a hard disk drive, a RAM, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, and transmission-type media [example types of media] […] computer readable media may take the form of coded formats that are decoded for actual use in a particular data processing system [additional example types of media].")
obtaining of a navigation path between two locations which are separated by an obstacle, the navigation path comprising an original vertex; (Fig. 3, Col. 4, lines 30-36: "…FIG. 3 depicts a typical path routing problem [navigation path] […] path is defined as a starting point and ending point [two locations], with a list of all the vertices the path goes through. S is the path starting point. E is the path end point. Obstacles 1-5 [separated by obstacle] all present potential routing problems when determining the path between S and E.")
modifying the navigation path to comprise a displaced vertex and two or more waypoints, wherein (i), the displaced vertex is displaced from the original vertex in a direction away from a part of the obstacle which is nearest to the original vertex; (Fig. 8, Col. 5, lines 55-66: "…Path (810) is the original path as calculated using Dijkstra's Algorithm. Path (812) represents the proposed offset path from A to 3. Obstacles (602) and (606) have been deformed to show the offset area (820) through which the three paths, A to 3, B to 2, and C to 1 will pass [modification of navigation path containing multiple waypoints]. Line (814) represents the change between the original and deformed locations of the vertex at obstacle (602) [displaced vertex]. The area between paths (810) and (812) represents the segment offset region (830) [displaced in direction away from obstacle nearest original vertex].")
and (ii) the two or more waypoints are located on the navigation path as modified and are not located on the navigation path that was obtained, (Fig. 13, Col. 9, lines 21-27: "FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a modified, topologically sorted, offset and rebuilt paths, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. FIG. 13 shows the three paths, A to 3, B to 2, and C to 1 routed through the same set of obstacles (602), (604), and (606), from FIG. 6, as they would appear after having been offset, modified for new intersections, topologically sorted and rebuilt [waypoints are located on new navigation path and not original navigation path].")
wherein a change in an orientation of the navigation path that was obtained over the original vertex is equal to a change in an orientation of the navigation path as modified over the displaced vertex (Col. 5, lines 30-40: "In a preferred embodiment, the corner of the polygonal obstacle is extended by the total offset amount, which is based on how many paths go through that corners vertex plus a constant. For example, if the offset amount was to be four 4 pixels, or what ever units are used, and 4 paths go through the vertex in question, then that vertex would be extended by sixteen pixels [offset distance method ensures that changes in orientation relative to original and displaced vertex are equal to each other by specific rate]. […]. In alternate embodiments, the total offset amount […] might be simply a constant amount [offset distance can be equal constant value].").
Hudson, Jr. does not teach for a vehicle to travel; and smoothing a section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints, wherein the smoothing of the section forms a curved path section in the navigation path, the curved path section coming no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex.
In a similar field of endeavor (maneuver planning of vehicle with Bezier curves), Azar teaches: for a vehicle to travel (Col. 1, lines 30-33: "…a system is provided for generating a maneuver on a propagated route for an unmanned vehicle from a series of waypoints [vehicle travel].")
and smoothing a section of the navigation path which passes via the displaced vertex and the two or more waypoints, wherein the smoothing of the section forms a curved path section in the navigation path, the curved path section coming no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 33-44: "…FIG. 3, a quartic rational Bezier curve (40) is used to provide a maneuver associated with three waypoints, W1-W3, for an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) [smooth section of navigation path which passes through displaced vertex with curved section and multiple waypoints]. […] system (20) selects five control points, P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4, and their corresponding scalar weights to ensure that a smooth curve with appropriate properties, arbitrary placement relative to the second waypoint, and kinematic and dynamic properties appropriate to the UAV [curved path section coming no closer to obstacle than original vertex].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hudson, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Azar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating a maneuver on a route for a vehicle from a series of waypoints using a Bezier curve (Azar Col. 2, lines 61-65, Col. 3, lines 23-46).
The combination of Hudson, Jr. and Azar does not teach based on a size of a vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle.
In a similar field of endeavor (generating a vehicle path around obstacles), Navarro, et al. teaches: based on a size of a vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle (Paragraph [0087]: "vii) Polygons are inflated in order to consider a safety distance [safety threshold around obstacle]. The vehicle's volume is taken into account by such distance [size of vehicle], along with other parameters and safety considerations (e.g., maximum turn radius of a vehicle, distortion factors due to Earth's sphericity, minimum required lateral separation, etc.) [specific additional examples of safety thresholds].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar to include the teaching of Navarro, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of generating conflict-free lateral paths in the presence of obstacles (Navarro, et al. Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 40, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein the navigation path comprises a sequence of positions between the two locations, (Azar Col. 5, lines 21-24: "…generate a maneuver from the positions for the set of N+1 control points and the scalar weights and provide it to a control system (34) of the unmanned vehicle [navigation path - sequence of positions between locations].")
and respective ones of the sequence of positions comprise a velocity and an acceleration for the vehicle at the respective position (Azar Col. 5, lines 27-30: "Similarly, the […] velocity, acceleration [velocity and acceleration], and curvature profiles will be readily computed from the control points and the scalar weights and provided to the vehicle control [for vehicle at respective positions].").
Regarding claim 41, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 20, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20, wherein a position of a first waypoint of the two or more waypoints is determined based on a calculated curve length (Azar Col. 5, line 65 to Col. 6, lines 1-5: "…and a distance between the intersecting waypoint, W2 and the maximum point of the Bezier curve, d22, of 100 m, with the positive value indicating that the intersecting waypoint is within the Bezier curve [waypoint is determined based on calculated curve length].").
Regarding claim 42, Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. remain as applied to claim 41, and in a further embodiment, teach: An apparatus as claimed in claim 41, wherein the apparatus is further caused to iterate a displacement of the displaced vertex from the original vertex through a set of values ranging from zero to a value equal to the calculated curve length (Azar Col. 7, lines 57-64: "respective positions are determined for each of the Nth set of N + 1 control points for a rational Bezier curve of order from at least the series of waypoints and the at least one parameter [iteration of every vertex related to curve length]. […] the parameters includes a desired distance between an extremum of the curve and a given waypoint of the series of waypoints, and the position of at least one control point can be determined from at least the desired distance between the extremum of the curve and the given waypoint [displaced vertex versus original vertex with respect to calculated curve length values].").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claims 20, 37, and 39 were patentable over Hudson, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7512485) in view of Azar (U.S. Patent No. 9785146) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “for a vehicle to travel”. The examiner disagrees. In Azar, a system is created in which a route is generated for “…an unmanned vehicle from a series of waypoints” (Col. 1, lines 30-33). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Azar with Hudson, Jr. et al. because Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches a system in which a navigation path consists of a displaced vertex in a direction away from the obstacle nearest an original vertex (Col. 5, lines 55-66).
Applicant also asserted that amended claims 20, 37, and 39 were patentable over Hudson, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7512485) in view of Azar (U.S. Patent No. 9785146) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “based on a size of the vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle”. Please note that Navarro, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200089239) was used to teach these features. In Navarro, et al. a navigation analysis system is implemented in which “…polygons are inflated in order to consider a safety distance”, or threshold, and in which “…the vehicle's volume”, or size, “…is taken into account by such distance” (Paragraph [0087]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Navarro, et al. with Hudson, Jr. et al. and Azar because Hudson, Jr. et al. teaches a system in which a navigation path consists of a displaced vertex in a direction away from the obstacle nearest an original vertex (Col. 5, lines 55-66) and Azar teaches a smoothed section of a navigation path which passes through a displaced vertex and two or more waypoints in which the smoothing forms a curved path section which comes no closer to the obstacle than the original vertex (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 33-44).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Hudson, Jr. et al., Azar, and Navarro, et al. reads on the claim limitations “for a vehicle to travel” and “based on a size of the vehicle and a safety threshold around the obstacle”, as stated in amended claims 20, 37, and 39, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Navarro, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11262764) describes a process and a system for the purpose of generating a path for a vehicle from one location to a second location within a two-dimensional (2D) environment with one or more obstacles.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has
been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit
the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner
contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663