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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on February 19, 2026. Claims 1-36 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “wherein the steering limit is configured to constrain a steering angle of the host vehicle relative to a maximum steering capability of the host vehicle” is fully supported (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner agrees. Paragraph 0853 discloses turning less than the maximum turning capability of the vehicle and gives an example of limiting the steering wheel angle to reduce the jerk on the host vehicle. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand jerk on the host vehicle to be lateral acceleration, there is support for using a maximum allowable lateral acceleration to limit the maximum steering capability of the host vehicle.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Oikawa does not disclose “steering limit…configured to constrain a steering angle of the host vehicle relative to a maximum steering capability of the host vehicle (Applicant’s Response, pg. 11), the examiner respectively disagrees. Shalev-Shwartz discloses a maximum turn radius being used to determine a lateral braking distance in paragraph 0008 and Oikawa discloses that the turning radius of the vehicle is based on the steering angle and wheelbase of the vehicle. The maximum turn radius is inherently relative to the maximum steering capability of the host vehicle and Oikawa teaches that the turn radius is based on the steering angle. Thus the steering angle would be constrained relative to a maximum steering capability.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Oikawa does not disclose a “setting a steering limit” that “is less than a maximum steering capability of the host vehicle” (Applicant’s Response, pg. 11), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20, 22-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shalev-Shwartz (WO 2020/035728).
Regarding claims 1, 28, and 29, Shalev-Shwartz discloses a system for navigating a host vehicle, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, and a method comprising:
at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory (Shalev-Shwartz, [0106] regarding a processor including circuits and a memory), wherein the memory includes instructions executable by the circuitry to cause the at least one processor to:
receive at least one image acquired by an image capture device, the at least one image being representative of an environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0148] regarding image capture devices that capture at least one image from an environment & [0831] regarding receiving at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle);
analyze the at least one image to identify at least one characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0833] regarding identifying a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle);
determine a navigational action for the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0832] regarding determining a planned navigational action for the host vehicle) based on:
the at least one characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0844] regarding determining a lateral braking distance for the target vehicle based the currently lateral speed of the target vehicle, the target vehicle maximum yaw rate capability, and the target vehicle maximum change in turn radius capability & [0808] regarding determining a target vehicle stopping rate based on the target vehicle braking rate), and
a steering limit corresponding to a maximum allowable lateral acceleration for the host vehicle, wherein the steering limit is less than a maximum steering capability of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0824] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle being based on predetermined constraints (e.g. maximum lateral acceleration may be less than the vehicle's true maximum capabilities). By limiting the maximum lateral acceleration to less than the vehicle's true maximum capabilities the maximum yaw rate capability and maximum change in turn radius capability would be limited to less than the vehicle's true maximum capabilities. & [0837] regarding determining a lateral braking distance for the host vehicle based on the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle, the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle, and the current lateral speed of the host vehicle); and
cause one or more actuators associated with the host vehicle to implement the determined navigational action (Shalev-Shwartz, [0845] regarding implementing the planned navigation action if the planned navigation action is safe).
Regarding claim 2, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle includes a characteristic associated with a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0823] regarding the recognized characteristic of the target vehicle including a vehicle type, a vehicle make or mode, brand name, or other classifier of the target vehicle, a vehicle size, or the like).
Regarding claim 3, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the characteristic associated with the target vehicle includes a vehicle type (Shalev-Shwartz, [0823] regarding determining a vehicle type of the target vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the characteristic associated with the target vehicle includes a vehicle size (Shalev-Shwartz, [0823] regarding determining the recognized characteristic of the target vehicle including a vehicle size).
Regarding claim 5, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the characteristic associated with the target vehicle includes a vehicle model (Shalev-Shwartz, [0823] regarding determining the recognized characteristic of the target vehicle including a vehicle model).
Regarding claim 6, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the characteristic associated with the target vehicle is determined based on analysis of the at least one image (Shalev-Shwartz, [0833] regarding analyzing at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the characteristic associated with the target vehicle is determined based on at least one of a LIDAR output or a RADAR output (Shalev-Shwartz, [0794] regarding the image of an environment of the host vehicle being obtained from a RADAR or LIDAR).
Regarding claim 8, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle includes a characteristic of an object in the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0784] regarding determining if the target vehicle belongs in a general category (e.g., full-size sedan, compact car, SUV, cross-over SUV, motorcycle, etc.)).
Regarding claim 9, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the characteristic of the object is determined based on analysis of the at least one image (Shalev-Shwartz, [0784] regarding using images that contain representations of the target vehicle).
Regarding claim 10, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the characteristic of the object is determined based on at least one of a LIDAR output or a RADAR output (Shalev-Shwartz, [0831] regarding the image of an environment of the host vehicle being obtained from a RADAR or LIDAR).
Regarding claim 11, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle includes a characteristic of a road surface in the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0843] regarding the target vehicle braking rate being determined based on a sensed condition of a road surface).
Regarding claim 12, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the characteristic of the road surface is determined based on analysis of the at least one image (Shalev-Shwartz, [0180] regarding using a plurality of images to detect road hazards and the road surface).
Regarding claim 13, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the characteristic of the road surface is determined based on at least one of a LIDAR output or a RADAR output (Shalev-Shwartz, [0831] regarding the image of an environment of the host vehicle being obtained from a RADAR or LIDAR).
Regarding claim 14, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic includes a curve in a roadway in the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, Fig. 17A regarding detecting a roundabout).
Regarding claim 15, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the maximum allowable lateral acceleration is determined based on the at least one characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0825] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle being determined based on the sensed road condition. By determining the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle using the sensed road condition, the maximum lateral acceleration would be determined based on the sensed road condition.).
Regarding claim 16, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the maximum allowable lateral acceleration is determined based on a user preference (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle being determined based on a user setting. By determining the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle using a user setting, the maximum lateral acceleration would be determined based on the user setting.).
Regarding claim 17, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the steering limit is based on at least one of a wheelbase associated with the host vehicle or a turn radius associated with the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle depending on the properties of the host vehicle (e.g., the turn radius of the host vehicle)).
Regarding claims 18 and 32, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system and method as claimed in claims 1 and 29, respectively, wherein the steering limit is based on an operational parameter associated with the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and/or the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle depending on the number of passengers, cargo of significant weight, a trailer, etc.).
Regarding claims 19 and 33, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system and method as claimed in claims 18 and 32, respectively, wherein the operational parameter includes at least one of a loading weight of the host vehicle, a number of passengers in the host vehicle, or a weight distribution within the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and/or the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle depending on the number of passengers, cargo of significant weight, a trailer, etc.).
Regarding claim 20, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the steering limit is based on an indication of a wheel slippage obtained by the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and/or the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle depending on an output of one or more sensors & [0798] regarding sensors including wheel slip sensors).
Regarding claim 22, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determined navigational action includes at least one of a lane change maneuver, a merge maneuver, or a passing maneuver (Shalev-Shwartz, [0828] regarding the planned navigation action including lane change maneuver, a merge maneuver, etc.).
Regarding claim 23, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the navigational action of the host vehicle includes
determining a plurality of navigational actions based on at least a long-term objective for the host vehicle, a driving policy, and a safety policy (Shalev-Shwartz, [0337] regarding autonomous driving applications determining immediate actions to optimize for a longer term objective & [0212] regarding a driving policy module & [0190] regarding a safety model),
wherein the plurality of navigational actions are optimized using the driving policy to achieve the long-term objective (Shalev-Shwartz, [0337] regarding determining immediate actions to optimize for a longer term objective), and
wherein the plurality of navigational actions are selected according to the safety policy to ensure the plurality of navigational actions are safe (Shalev-Shwartz, [0399] regarding putting constraints (from the safety model) on the short-term future (i.e. navigational actions) so that no accidents will happen in the future).
Regarding claim 24, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 23, wherein selecting the plurality of navigational actions according to the safety policy to ensure the plurality of navigational actions are safe includes verifying the plurality of navigational actions allow the host vehicle to maintain a minimum safe distance between the host vehicle and at least one object (Shalev-Shwartz, [0815] regarding performing a planned navigation action if it allows the host vehicle to maintain a safe longitudinal distance from the target vehicle).
Regarding claim 25, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 23, wherein the steering limit is configured such that the plurality of navigational actions do not invoke a steering operation that results in the host vehicle exceeding the maximum allowable lateral acceleration (Shalev-Shwartz, [0824] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle being based on predetermined constraints (e.g. maximum lateral acceleration may be less than the vehicle's true maximum capabilities as it can be uncomfortable to passengers). By limiting the maximum lateral acceleration the maximum yaw rate would be limited according to the lateral acceleration limitation.).
Regarding claims 26 and 30, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 1 and 28, respectively, wherein the determined navigational action includes a steering maneuver and wherein determining the navigational action for the host vehicle includes:
determining, based on the characteristic associated with the environment of the host vehicle, whether implementing the steering maneuver consistent with the steering limit will result in the host vehicle maintaining a safe distance with at least one object in the environment of the host vehicle; and
if implementing the steering maneuver consistent with the steering limit will not result in the host vehicle maintaining the safe distance with at least one object in the environment of the host vehicle, foregoing causing implementation of the steering maneuver consistent with the steering limit (Shalev-Shwartz, [0845] regarding implementing the planned navigational action if the planned navigation action is safe & [0846] regarding dictating that the autonomous vehicle never comes within a specified distance of another vehicle (i.e., perform the planned navigational action if the vehicles do not come within a specified distance of one another and do not if the vehicle will come within the specified distance of one another.).
Regarding claims 27 and 31, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 26 and 30, respectively, wherein the safe distance includes at least one of a longitudinal safe distance or a lateral safe distance (Shalev-Shwartz, [0846] regarding the predetermined separation distance being a distance of any dimension (i.e., lateral or longitudinal).
Regarding claim 35, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the steering limit is based on a dynamic condition of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and/or the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle depending on the number of passengers, cargo of significant weight, a trailer, etc.).
Regarding claim 36, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the steering limit is based on a physical characteristic of the host vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz, [0835] regarding the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle depending on the properties of the host vehicle (e.g., the turn radius of the host vehicle)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz in view of Gao (EP 4140839).
Regarding claim 21, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 20, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the wheel slippage is obtained based on analysis of the at least one image.
Gao teaches wherein the indication of the wheel slippage is obtained based on analysis of the at least one image (Gao, [0055] regarding using vision-based sensors to estimate wheel slip).
Shalev-Shwartz and Gao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shalev-Shwartz to incorporate detecting wheel slippage based on an image, as disclosed by Gao, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would provide another method of detecting wheel slippage, thus improving accuracy of detection.
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz in view of Gold (US 2008/0177495).
Regarding claim 34, Shalev-Shwartz discloses the system as claimed in claim 1. Shalev-Shwartz further teaches the maximum yaw rate capability of the host vehicle and the maximum change in turn radius capability of the host vehicle being dependent on the properties of the host vehicle ([0835]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the steering limit is based on a wheelbase of the host vehicle.
Gold teaches that the wheelbase length is a physical property of a vehicle ([0105]).
Shalev-Shwartz and Gold are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shalev-Shwartz to incorporate having the wheelbase length as a physical property of a vehicle, as disclosed by Gold, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to use the wheelbase length when performing calculations and controlling the vehicle.
Shalev-Shwartz, as modified, teaches wherein the steering limit is based on a wheelbase of the host vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665