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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20220382439A1) in view of Kuhara (US20180215376A1) and Matsunaga (US20210086797A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches;
A method for controlling a fleet of autonomous vehicles associated with a set of customer sites (taught as managing on-site machines, paragraph 0021), the method comprising:
receiving scheduling information from a site management subsystem associated with the set of customer sites (indicated by showing whether a machine is on schedule, paragraph 0026, so the system has scheduling information for the broader system);
controlling a first autonomous vehicle of the fleet of autonomous vehicles along a route to a first site of the set of customer sites based on the scheduling information (taught as moving machines along defined routes, such as route 1 and 2, paragraph 0032; wherein defining multiple customer sites can be arbitrarily done, such as by sectioning a map; for example, in multiple sections for the operator to monitor/customize, paragraph 0024);
while the first autonomous vehicle is located at the first site, collecting, at the first autonomous vehicle, a set of sensor information (taught as generating geographical information associated with the work site, paragraph 0057), the set of sensor information comprising at least one of [interpreted to mean only one of a camera or LIDAR information need be present] camera (taught as capturing images by the machine to create geographical information to transmit to the server, paragraph 0057) and LIDAR data;
based at least in part on the set of sensor information, at the first autonomous vehicle, determining an environmental representation of at least a portion of the first site (taught as displaying an elevated view, e.g. Fig 4d, paragraph 0027), wherein the environmental representation comprises:
a set of locations of a set of vehicles at the first site (taught a displaying objects, including multiple machines, paragraph 0027), the set of vehicles comprising the fleet of autonomous vehicles and a subset of vehicles that are separate and distinct from the fleet of autonomous vehicles (taught as including differentiations between machine states and statuses, such as by color, paragraph 0051; while not explicitly defined as fleet/non-fleet vehicles, the difference in status and task would distinguish machines to accomplish the claimed function); and
a set of locations of a set of humans at the first site (taught as displaying objects, including workers, paragraph 0027);
transmitting the environmental representation to a fleet management subsystem, the fleet management subsystem in communication with the site management subsystem and the fleet of autonomous vehicles (taught as using a server to manage the on-site machines, element 101, which presents the integrated user interface for the operator/controller to manage the machines, paragraph 0033, which compiles the stored information of the site map and receives image information captured from machines to integrate into the server, paragraph 0057),
determining a first set of control instructions for a second autonomous vehicle of the fleet of autonomous vehicles based on the scheduling information (taught as moving machines [plural indicates at least a second machine] along defined routes, such as route 1 and 2, paragraph 0032).
However, Lewis does not explicitly teach;
determining a second set of control instructions for a second autonomous vehicle of the fleet of autonomous vehicles using the environmental representation determined at the first autonomous vehicle, comparing the first set of control instructions to the second set of control instructions, wherein upon determining a discrepancy between the second set of control instructions and the first set of control instructions, preventing control of the second autonomous vehicle based on the prior set of control instructions;
controlling the second autonomous vehicle according to the updated set of control instructions.
Kuhara teaches; determining a second set of control instructions for the second autonomous vehicle of the fleet of autonomous vehicles using the environmental representation [[determined at the first autonomous vehicle]], comparing the first set of control instructions to the second set of control instructions, wherein upon determining a discrepancy between the second set of control instructions and the first set of control instructions [based on the applicant’s arguments dated 3/17/2025, which recite paragraphs 0127, 0131, 0136, this is interpreted to include indicating instances detecting a difference in part of the control information, such as updating environmental conditions like congestion and weather], preventing control of the second autonomous vehicle based on the first set of control instructions (taught as changing the delivery order [current route/instructions to next planned parking/stopping location] when it is determined that, based on the discrepancy between planned destinations for unloading/parking and the actual environmental considerations indicating that parking or stopping is not possible, paragraph 0188, including updates to the map/data from images from autonomous vehicles to determine nonviable stopping locations, paragraph 0171); and
controlling the second autonomous vehicle according to the second set of control instructions (taught as changing the delivery location/order, paragraph 0188, indicating a control change in the vehicles).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the scheduling change in routing as taught by Kuhara in the system taught by Lewis in order to improve efficiency. Such a system allows for progress to be made despite unexpected blockages in delivery sites, and thus improves overall delivery efficiency, as suggested by Kuhara (paragraph 0187).
However, Kuhara does not explicitly teach; using the environmental representation determined at the first autonomous vehicle.
Matsunaga teaches; using the environmental representation determined at the first autonomous vehicle (taught as updating a shared map based on the surrounding environment information when a difference larger than a reference value is confirmed, paragraph 0137; in this case, a first vehicle would, based on the surrounding environment information, update the shared map, which is then used for subsequent vehicles to be controlled by).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share vehicle data as taught by Matsunaga in the system taught by Lewis as modified by Kuhara in order to improve group control. As suggested by Matsunaga, sharing map information can allow for more timely map updates/distribute to vehicles at better times (paragraphs 0019-0020). To reiterate, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the idea of specific map sharing/updating of the surrounding environment as taught by Matsunaga in the system taught by Lewis, who already suggests taking images of the surroundings to generate geographical information and share to a server (paragraph 0057), to improve the accuracy and timing of updated map material, and further be modified by Kuhara to modify routes when such updates occur.
Regarding claim 2, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; wherein the second set of control instructions automatically initiates a change in order of the first site relative to direct the second autonomous vehicle to at least one other site in an ordered list of customer sites planned for the second autonomous vehicle.
Kuhara teaches; wherein the second set of control instructions automatically initiates a change in order of the first site relative to direct the second autonomous vehicle to at least one other site in an ordered list of customer sites planned for the second autonomous vehicle (taught as changing the delivery order in response to determining that parking/stopping is not possible at the original planned location, paragraph 0188).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the scheduling change in routing as taught by Kuhara in the system taught by Lewis in order to improve efficiency. Such a system allows for progress to be made despite unexpected blockages in delivery sites, and thus improves overall delivery efficiency, as suggested by Kuhara (paragraph 0187).
Regarding claim 3, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; wherein the environmental representation indicates that:
each of a set of loading docks at the first site is occupied; and
a set of waiting spots at the first site is at least partially occupied.
Kuhara teaches; wherein the environmental representation indicates that:
each of a set of loading docks at the first site is occupied (taught as parking/stopping locations are unavailable, paragraph 0188); and
a set of waiting spots at the first site is at least partially occupied (taught as parking/stopping locations are unavailable [such as due to another vehicle is already present], paragraph 0188, including peripheral areas near the planned location, paragraph 0170).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the scheduling change in routing as taught by Kuhara in the system taught by Lewis in order to improve efficiency. Such a system allows for progress to be made despite unexpected blockages in delivery sites, and thus improves overall delivery efficiency, as suggested by Kuhara (paragraph 0187).
Regarding claim 4, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; wherein the change in order comprises a delay at the first site relative to at least one of the other sites.
Kuhara teaches; wherein the change in order comprises a delay at the first site relative to at least one of the other sites (taught as changing the delivery order in response to determining that parking/stopping is not possible at the original planned location, paragraph 0188).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the scheduling change in routing as taught by Kuhara in the system taught by Lewis in order to improve efficiency. Such a system allows for progress to be made despite unexpected blockages in delivery sites, and thus improves overall delivery efficiency, as suggested by Kuhara (paragraph 0187).
Regarding claim 5, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Lewis further teaches; wherein determining the environmental representation further comprises determining a set of locations of a set of loading dock spots and a set of parking spots at the first site (taught as depicting loading areas, restrict areas, dumping areas etc. in the displayed view, paragraph 0065), such that [“such that” merely recites an intended use; It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masharn, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)] the locations of the vehicles and the humans can be determined relative to the set of locations of the set of loading dock spots and the set of parking spots (taught as displaying an elevated view of the work site based on the geographic boundary, paragraph 0065, and are used to view distances among the machines and features, paragraph 0072, and displaying information to indicate the surroundings and distances of the surroundings to a machine, paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 6, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), Lewis further teaches; further comprising transmitting at least a subset of the environmental representation to the site management subsystem (taught as using a server to manage the on-site machines, element 101, which presents the integrated user interface for the operator [or controller] to manage the machines, paragraph 0033, which compiles the stored information of the site map and receive image information captured from machines to integrate into the serve, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 7, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). Lewis further teaches; further comprising updating the scheduling information at the site management subsystem (taught as displaying a schedule on the view of the integrated user interface associated with a machine, indicating that when changes occur, such as progress in loading, the information gets updated, paragraph 0026), wherein updating the scheduling information triggers an updated schedule to be [“to be” merely recites an intended use; It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masharn, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)] transmitted to a non-fleet vehicle associated with the first site (taught as managing operations of the machines in the site, paragraph 0033, which includes automatic, semi-automatic and manual machines, paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 8, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Lewis further teaches; wherein the subset of vehicles comprises non-autonomous vehicles (taught as the machines being automatic, semi-automatic or manual, paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 15, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Lewis further teaches; further comprising, after determining the environmental representation, transmitting a notification operable to alter a trajectory of a non-fleet vehicle (taught as managing operations of the machines in the site, paragraph 0033, which includes automatic, semi-automatic and manual machines, paragraph 0052, where the managing operations includes control of the machines, paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 16, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection). Lewis further teaches; wherein the notification is transmitted to an application executing on a user device associated with a human driver of the non-fleet vehicle (taught as managing operations of the machines in the site, paragraph 0033, which includes automatic, semi-automatic and manual machines, paragraph 0052, where the managing operations includes control of the machines, paragraph 0022, which in combination would cause a manual machine to receive control instructions from an operator of the management system).
Regarding claim 17, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 17 (see claim 17/1 rejection). Lewis further teaches; wherein sensors of the first sensor subsystem sensors are fixed relative to the first autonomous vehicle and mobile relative to the first site (taught as capturing images by the machines to create geographical information, paragraph 0057, which are mobile along, for example, routes, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 19, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 17 (see claim 17/1 rejection). Lewis further teaches; wherein the first processing subsystem is further configured to receive inputs from the set of site workers via the set of user interfaces (taught as receiving input form users/operators via input device, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 20. Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 19 (see claim 19 rejection), wherein the updated set of control instructions are further determined based on the inputs (taught as receiving input from users/operators via input device, paragraph 0043, including methods to control the machines, paragraph 0022).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20220382439A1) as modified by Kuhara (US20180215376A1) and Matsunaga (US20210086797A1), and further in view of Zhu (US20190078896A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Matsunaga teaches;
The method of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; further comprising, for a third autonomous vehicle located at the first site concurrently with the first autonomous vehicle, using the set of sensor information to update a second set of control instructions associated with the third autonomous vehicle upon determining the discrepancy between the second set of control instructions and the first set of control instructions.
Zhu teaches; further comprising, for a third autonomous vehicle located at the first site concurrently with the first autonomous vehicle, using the set of sensor information to update a second set of control instructions associated with the third autonomous vehicle upon determining the discrepancy between the second set of control instructions and the first set of control instructions (taught as using an updated map [which indicates a difference/discrepancy in a current and an updated map version], which is transmitted to individual vehicles, to subsequently drive vehicles, paragraph 0047, based on real-time data to plan/update a route, paragraph 0033).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use updated and shared map information to influence other individual vehicle routes as taught by Zhu in the system taught by Lewis as modified by Kuhara in order to improve navigation. Such a system allows for more real-time information that affects vehicles to be applied, even when the individual vehicle did not use its own sensors to discover it, for example, Zhu suggests determining drivable areas in a lane (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 10, Lewis as modified by Kuhara, Matsunaga, and Zhu teaches;
The method of Claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). Lewis further teaches; further comprising detecting that each of the first autonomous vehicle and third autonomous vehicle are located at the first site based on a geofence defining the first site (taught as a site map showing geospatial information of a work site that shows the machines contained within, paragraph 0022, potentially determined based on a site-specific boundary or geographic boundary, paragraph0065).
Regarding claim 21, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 9. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20220382439A1) as modified by Kuhara (US20180215376A1), Matsunaga (US20210086797A1), and Zhu (US20190078896A1), and further in view of Avery (US20100214085A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis as modified by Kuhara, Matsunaga, and Zhu teaches;
The method of Claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; wherein the second set of control instructions is configured to prevent the third autonomous vehicle from leaving a loading dock at the first site, wherein the sensor information indicates that an object is present in a blind spot of sensors of the third autonomous vehicle.
Avery teaches; wherein the second set of control instructions is configured to prevent the third autonomous vehicle from leaving a loading dock at the first site, wherein the sensor information indicates that an object is present in a blind spot of sensors of the third autonomous vehicle (taught as cooperative sensor sharing, such as V2V, to avoid and prevent collisions, paragraph0017, and for example, will stop the receiving vehicle before projected paths would intersect, paragraph 0025).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share sensor information between vehicles as taught by Avery in the system taught by Lewis as modified by Kuhara and Zhu in order to improve collision avoidance. Such a system, as taught by Avery, enables vehicles to detect hazards that cannot be sensed/would otherwise be hidden from view (paragraph 0003), and thus would be able to react prior to a collision.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20220382439A1) as modified by Kuhara (US20180215376A1), Matsunaga (US20210086797A1), Zhu (US20190078896A1), and Avery (US20100214085A1), and further in view of Tomita (US20200064863A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lewis as modified by Kuhara, Matsunaga, Zhu, and Avery teaches;
The method of Claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). Lewis further teaches; wherein controlling the third autonomous vehicle according to the second set of control instructions is triggered in response to receiving instructions from a user interface associated with a site worker (taught as a managing system, controlled by an operator, for controlling the machines, paragraph 0022). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; that the third autonomous vehicle is free to leave the loading dock in response to completion of at least one of a loading process and an unloading process.
Tomita teaches; that the third autonomous vehicle is free to leave the loading dock in response to completion of at least one of a loading process and an unloading process (taught as, when the machine completely unloads [e.g. crops], continue to/on the work route, paragraph 0124).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continue work upon finishing a task as taught by Tomita in the system taught by Lewis in order to improve efficiency. Additionally, it would be common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art to, upon completing one step, continue to the next sequential step, and not continue until that step is complete.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20220382439A1)as modified by Kuhara (US20180215376A1), Matsunaga (US20210086797A1), and Zhu (US20190078896A1), and further in view of Brant (US20130013178A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lewis as modified by Kuhara, Matsunaga, and Zhu teaches;
The method of Claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; wherein the environmental representation identifies a number of vehicles that are waiting to enter the first site.
Brant teaches; wherein the environmental representation identifies a number of vehicles that are waiting to enter the first site (taught as identifying the number of vehicle waiting in the queue, paragraph 0037).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify traffic queue length as taught by Brant in the system taught by Lewis as modified by Kuhara in order to improve predictions about scheduling. Such consideration aids in improving ideal scheduling and timing of actions, such as by updating queue and route data in negotiation with related controller based on proposed timings derived from the number of vehicles in a queue (Brant, paragraph 0039). To reiterate, when rerouting or determining time remaining in a task, one of ordinary skill in the art would detect and use a number of vehicles in a queue, as taught by Brant, to improve estimates of times/progress for tasks as taught by Lewis.
Regarding claim 14, Lewis as modified by Kuhara, Matsunaga, Zhu and Brant teaches;
The method of Claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection). However, Lewis does not explicitly teach; wherein the updated second set of control instructions are operable to re-route the third autonomous vehicle to a different area within the first site than originally planned.
Kuhara teaches; wherein the updated second set of control instructions are operable to re-route the third autonomous vehicle to a different area within the first site than originally planned (taught as changing the delivery order in response to determining that parking/stopping is not possible at the original planned location, paragraph 0188).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the scheduling change in routing as taught by Kuhara in the system taught by Lewis in order to improve efficiency. Such a system allows for progress to be made despite unexpected blockages in delivery sites, and thus improves overall delivery efficiency, as suggested by Kuhara (paragraph 0187).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of the remarks that amended claim 1 is not fully addressed by the recited prior art
The examiner agrees that the previously recited prior art does not sufficiently address generating an environmental representation at a first vehicle that is shared/used by the second vehicle, and withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Matsunaga, which addresses the updating of map data based on environmental information which is shared to a shared map, and thus would be used for a subsequent vehicle routing using said map.
The applicant argues that the examiner improperly interpreted the claim limitations with regards to determining a discrepancy between the control instructions.
The examiner is merely intending to use the cited support from the specification to indicate an interpretation within the scope of the claim language, not to limit it only to what is recited in the specification. The examiner rephrased the interpretation in the rejection related to this to “to include” rather than “to be” to help clarify this issue. Regardless, the interpretation is there to help clarify what is contained in the broadest reasonable scope of the claim language, and the examiner’s notes on the interpretation merely serve to clarify, for the record, where such interpretation comes from by citing relevant portions of the instant specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further geofencing related to claim 10, US-20220410936-A1 and US-20230020040-A1.
For further intra-platoon communication and sensor sharing related to claim 11, US-20230038372-A1.
For further comparison of routes and redirecting vehicles onto alternate route plans; DE20160033432A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662