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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 10th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed November 19th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, pages 4-8, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Keshavamurthy, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0316919).
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/10/2026, regarding the limitation “… for determining corrected route instructions for the autonomous vehicle in case of a necessary redirection along the route” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues that that the prior arts Smith in view of Okude do not teach the above limitation, specifically, Okude discloses “discloses a comparison only for the purpose to sync old and new map data”, rather than “a necessary redirection along the route”, see applicant’s remarks page 5. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Okude teaches, as cited by the applicant, comparing a first route with a second route, where the first route is calculated by a server using first map data and “most recently updated content in traffic information and the like accumulated in the external information database” and a second route calculated using second map data “held at the navigation terminal” of a vehicle and provided by the vehicle to the server, and based on the comparison, providing an “an updated route” (Okude, previously cited Para. 0043 and see further Para. 0048), wherein the routes are selected according to a preference for “route with lighter traffic” or other search conditions such as “minimum traveling distance or minimum traveling time” (Okude, Para. 0029), such that it would be “necessary” to redirect the vehicle from the route calculated at the navigation terminal of the vehicle to a route calculated according to updated map data in order to provide an updated route satisfying the search conditions.
Furthermore, Smith teaches providing “updated route information” to the autonomous vehicle according to “traffic information, weather information, or other data, which may trigger a rerouting of the autonomous vehicle”, where it would be “necessary” to trigger a rerouting due to the information (Smith, Col. 7 Line 24-65), such that Smith in view of Okude teaches the limitation “… for determining corrected route instructions for the autonomous vehicle in case of a necessary redirection along the route”. The examiner suggests specifying what constitutes “a necessary redirection along the route”.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 16 teaches “…sending the corrected route instructions to one of more beacons” which appears to include a misspelling based on the specification and should instead read “…sending the corrected route instructions to one or more beacons”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,152,053) in view of Okude, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0204528), and further in view of Keshavamurthy, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0316919).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches: An autonomous transportation network (Smith, Col. 1 Lines 47-67 – an autonomous fleet management system) comprising
a plurality of autonomous vehicles (Smith, Col. 4 Lines 51-63 – “autonomous vehicles”) with an onboard processor and vehicle memory (Smith, Col. 15 Line 31-Col. 16 Line 2 – a “computer system” that is a component of an autonomous vehicle including processors and memory) for calculating a route between an origin and a destination (Smith, Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 30 and Col. 6 Lines 15-33 – each autonomous vehicle includes a “location module” may calculate a travel route to travel from a “present location” or origin, to a “destination location”; where the location module’s commands are executed by “one or more processing units that are specially programmed to execute very specific software commands”) and a vehicle antenna for transmitting the calculated route (Smith, Col. 5 Line 31-57 – “a communications module” for wireless communication such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular signals, etc. such that the module has an antenna; where the module is used for sending data related to “routing data”);
a control management center comprising a control management processor and a central memory for independently calculating the routes of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (Smith, Col. 1 Lines 47-67, Col. 5 Line 31-Col. 6 Line 33 and Col. 9 Lines 1-47 – a “command of a fleet management system” receives data, including routing data, and can “alter routes” for the autonomous vehicles, provide routing information, etc. using computing devices; where the fleet management system includes a memory); and
a plurality of beacons connected to the control management center (Smith, Col. 7 Line 66-Col. 9 Line 47 and Col. 12 Lines 9-24 – a system, including the fleet management system, which is “configured to monitor and control a number of autonomous vehicle locations in real-time using GPS coordinates provided by the autonomous vehicles and/or using traffic beacons, and/or other location sensors”) where the fleet management system can alter routes, or redirect, of the autonomous vehicle, based on, for example, “accidents, detours”, weather, crime data, etc., or disturbances), wherein
the control management center is further adapted“Fleet management system … may also be configured to relay information, such as route information… for use in altering routes and pick-up schedules to ensure that a most optimum matching and routing schedule is maintained” where the path chosen is based on current and historical traffic; where the autonomous vehicle “may make further adjustments to its speed, direction, and/or route based on the updated route information”).
While Smith teaches a plurality of beacons connected to the control management center, and redirection information, Smith does not teach a plurality of beacons connected to the control management center and receiving redirection information from the control management center for transmission to one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles. Additionally, Smith does not teach the control management center is further adapted for simulating a traffic demand and the routes of the autonomous vehicles, for comparing the routes calculated for the plurality of autonomous vehicles with the route independently calculated in the control management center.
However, Okude teaches the control management center is further adapted for comparing the routes calculated for the vehicle with the route independently calculated in the control management center (Okude, Para. 0006, 0027-0031 and 0043 – where a “first route” is “is compared with the second route”, where the first route is calculated by a “server apparatus” of an “external information center”, such as a “traffic information center”, and the second route is calculated by a “navigation terminal” of a vehicle; where the “external information center” obtains “traffic information” and where the external information center will perform a “route search”, to calculate a route, and for example include preferences for “a route with lighter traffic, and the like” as search condition).
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 the autonomous transportation network of Smith to include the control management center is further adapted for comparing the routes calculated for the vehicle with the route independently calculated in the control management center, as taught by Okude, in order to improve route accuracy and avoid heavy traffic along a route.
Smith in view of Okude does not specifically teach a plurality of beacons connected to the control management center and receiving redirection information from the control management center for transmission to one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, and the control management center is further adapted for simulating a traffic demand and the route of the vehicle.
However, Keshavamurthy teaches a plurality of beacons connected to the control management center and receiving redirection information from the control management center for transmission to one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (Keshavamurthy, Fig. 1B Below, and Para. 0057, 0115 – “edge server[s]”, provided as exemplary “roadside units (RSUs)”, or beacons, see 107a-…n on Fig. 1B, installed “in a proximity to roadways, such as freeways, highways, city streets, and/or intersections to communicate with vehicles” and able “to communicate with cloud services, such as the centralized server 101, via a high-bandwidth wired connection”; where the “centralized server” determines and provides “the best routes for the vehicle” to “the edge server 107a for provision to the vehicle 103a”),
and the control management center is further adapted for simulating a traffic demand and the route of the vehicle (Keshavamurthy, Para. 0045, 0068, 0076-0077, 0119, 0128 – “traffic density and flow data 230B may reflect the density and/or flow of vehicular traffic on all roadways monitored by the centralized server 101”, where “density and flow may be estimated based on the traffic history data 230A for different temporal dimensions, such as time of day, day of the week, season, month, etc.”, such that the traffic density and flow, or demand, is simulated using historical data, where the traffic data is implemented as “processed dynamic data” provided to a “path finder 212, the lane planner 210, and/or the route planner 208 for use in calculating the path(s), the lane(s), and/or the route(s)” to provide new “updates of more optimal paths”).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keshavamurthy, Fig. 1B
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the autonomous transportation network including the above limitations of Smith in view of Okude to include the a plurality of beacons connected to the control management center and receiving redirection information from the control management center for transmission to one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, and the control management center is further adapted for simulating a traffic demand and the route of the vehicle, as taught by Keshavamurthy, in order to provide “more accurate and efficient routes” (Keshavamurthy, Para. 0013-0014).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith teaches: A method of operation of an autonomous transportation network comprising a plurality of autonomous vehicles (Smith, Col. 1 Line 32-67 – “methods related to autonomous vehicle fleet management” with a “a fleet of AVs [autonomous vehicles]”), the method comprising:
receiving an instruction for a journey from an origin to a destination (Smith, Col. 1 Line 47-67 and Col. 9 Line 1-47 – “a request for a ride using an AV” including “a pick-up location” and a “a drop off location”);
locally calculating in at least one of plurality of autonomous vehicles a route from the origin to the destination (Smith, Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 30 – each autonomous vehicle includes a “location module” may calculate a travel route to travel from a “present location” or origin, to a “destination location”);
independently calculating in a control management center the route from the origin to the destination (Smith, Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 30 and Col. 6 Line 52-Col. 7 Line 7 – where a fleet management system calculates a path from pick up location to destination location and provide the routing information to the autonomous vehicle);
“Fleet management system … may also be configured to relay information, such as route information… for use in altering routes and pick-up schedules to ensure that a most optimum matching and routing schedule is maintained” where the path chosen is based on current and historical traffic; where the autonomous vehicle “may make further adjustments to its speed, direction, and/or route based on the updated route information”); and,
in the event of a disturbance, sending corrected route instructions to the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (Smith, Col. 7 Line 24-65 – where “updated route information may be provided to the autonomous vehicle” due to traffic, weather, or other information), “traffic beacons”).
While Smith teaches one or more beacons, Smith does not teach wherein the sending of the correction route instruction comprises sending the corrected route instructions to one or more beacons. Additionally, Smith does not teach comparing the route calculated in the one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles with the route independently calculated in the control management center, wherein the comparing further comprises simulating a traffic demand and the routes of the autonomous vehicles.
However, Okude teaches comparing the route calculated in the vehicle with the route independently calculated in the control management center (Okude, Para. 0006, 0027-0031 and 0043 – where a “first route” is “is compared with the second route”, where the first route is calculated by a “server apparatus” of an “external information center”, such as a “traffic information center”, and the second route is calculated by a “navigation terminal” of a vehicle; where the “external information center” obtains “traffic information” and where the external information center will perform a “route search”, to calculate a route, and for example include preferences for “a route with lighter traffic, and the like” as search conditions).
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 the method of Smith to include comparing the route calculated in the vehicle with the route independently calculated in the control management center, as taught by Okude, in order to improve route accuracy and avoid heavy traffic along a route.
Smith in view of Okude does not specifically teach wherein the sending of the correction route instruction comprises sending the corrected route instructions to one or more beacons, and wherein the comparing further comprises simulating a traffic demand and the routes of the autonomous vehicles.
However, Keshavamurthy teaches wherein the sending of the correction route instruction comprises sending the corrected route instructions to one or more beacons (Keshavamurthy, Fig. 1B Below, and Para. 0057, 0115 – “edge server[s]”, provided as exemplary “roadside units (RSUs)”, or beacons, see 107a-…n on Fig. 1B, installed “in a proximity to roadways, such as freeways, highways, city streets, and/or intersections to communicate with vehicles” and able “to communicate with cloud services, such as the centralized server 101, via a high-bandwidth wired connection”; where the “centralized server” determines and provides “the best routes for the vehicle” to “the edge server 107a for provision to the vehicle 103a”),
and wherein the comparing further comprises simulating a traffic demand and the routes of the autonomous vehicles (Keshavamurthy, Para. 0045, 0068, 0076-0077, 0119, 0128 – “traffic density and flow data 230B may reflect the density and/or flow of vehicular traffic on all roadways monitored by the centralized server 101”, where “density and flow may be estimated based on the traffic history data 230A for different temporal dimensions, such as time of day, day of the week, season, month, etc.”, such that the traffic density and flow, or demand, is simulated using historical data, where the traffic data is implemented as “processed dynamic data” provided to a “path finder 212, the lane planner 210, and/or the route planner 208 for use in calculating the path(s), the lane(s), and/or the route(s)” to provide new “updates of more optimal paths”).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keshavamurthy, Fig. 1B
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Smith in view of Okude to include wherein the sending of the correction route instruction comprises sending the corrected route instructions to one or more beacons, and wherein the comparing further comprises simulating a traffic demand and the routes of the autonomous vehicles, as taught by Keshavamurthy, in order to provide “more accurate and efficient routes” (Keshavamurthy, Para. 0013-0014).
In regards to Claim 7, Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy teaches the method of Claim 4, and Smith further teaches, wherein the corrected route instructions comprises one or more of speed instructions or diversion instructions (Smith, Col. 5 Lines 31-57 and Col. 7 Line 24-65 – where at the command of a fleet management system, the autonomous vehicle may receive commands to adjust a speed).
In regards to Claim 10, Smith in view of Keshavamurthy and Okude teaches the autonomous transportation network of Claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein simulating a traffic demand and the routes of the autonomous vehicles is performed using requests received from a plurality of passengers (Smith, Col. 2 Lines 1-48, Col. 3 Line 38-Col. 4 Line 31, and Col. 7 Line 24-65 – where an algorithm, or simulation, is used by the fleet management system to determine a priority for a passenger, based on a plurality of requests for Avs from “a plurality of users”, or passengers; where routing is done based on the requests and various other factors such as traffic information and current ridership).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy, and further in view of Dulberg, et al., hereinafter Dulberg (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0242922).
In regards to Claim 2, Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy teaches the autonomous transportation network of Claim 1, but Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of beacons are located at junctions.
However, Dulberg teaches wherein the plurality of beacons are located at junctions (Dulberg, See Fig. 1 Below and Para. 0030 and 0111 – four receivers located at their respective locations at a road intersection, or junction; where the receivers are used for sending and receiving signals such that they act as beacons).
PNG
media_image2.png
716
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dulberg, Annotated Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the autonomous transportation network including the above limitations of Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy to include wherein the plurality of beacons are located at junctions, as taught by Dulberg, in order to locate the beacons at locations that are frequented by autonomous vehicles for both ease of communication and saving resources on the beacons.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy, and further in view of Stentz, et al., hereinafter Stentz (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0209801).
In regards to Claim 3, Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy teaches the autonomous transportation network of Claim 1, and Smith does not teach wherein the control management center is adapted to determine conflict situation in the routes of the plurality of autonomous vehicles.
However, Stentz teaches wherein the control management center is adapted to determine conflict situation in the routes of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (Stentz, Para. 0038-0042 and 0066 – where a transport system can identify a traffic situation based on a current self driving vehicle and others in the fleet and can determine alternative routes and perform a risk analysis for those routes; where for example a situation is another vehicle preventing the current vehicle from completing a lane change, such that there is a conflict between the vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the autonomous transportation network including the above limitations of Smith in view of Okude and Keshavamurthy to include wherein the control management center is adapted to determine conflict situation in the routes of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, as taught by Stentz, in order to help an autonomous vehicle avoid a conflict and find an alternative route to take.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ahn, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0216125) teaches a method of determining whether there is a need to re-calculate a trip route including a departure point and a destination by using traffic information.
Dean, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0019175) teaches a control system for an autonomous vehicle can determine a risk value for each respective path segment of a plurality of path segments in a given area that includes a destination of the autonomous vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights