DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in an Amendment filed on 01/28/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 18-19 have been canceled, and 1-17 & 20-22 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim(s) rejections under 35 USC §103: Arguments made with respect to claim(s) 1-17 & 20-22 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as applied in the current rejection, and/or do not apply to each of the references relied upon. Furthermore, any modification of a reference’s application or introduction of additional references was necessitated by Applicant s instant amendments. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art Foster et al. US 20230140569 A1, Schlesinger et al. US 20170328725 A1, & Periwal US 20100045452 A1.
Foster reads upon the limitations of “the roadway data comprises a reduced traction”, as well as teaching steering control of the vehicle during weather conditions. Periwal reads on reducing the speed of the vehicle below a posted speed limit due to weather conditions. Schlesinger teaches determining a route score based on data collected from sensors and external sources. A person of reasonable skill in the art would find the combination of Foster, Schlesinger, and Periwal with Mayers to teach the claimed limitations of the instant application using BRI because Foster’s fleet autonomous trucks taking action due to weather conditions from V2V (oversight) communication, Periwal’s speed limiter for dangerous weather conditions, and Schlesinger’s route optimizer combined with the wind detection and mitigation system of Mayers reads on the instant application.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 8, 15-16, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers et al. US 20180210447 A1 (hereinafter “Myers”) in view of Foster et al. US 20230140569 A1 (hereinafter “Foster”) and Periwal US 20100045452 A1 (hereinafter “Periwal”).
Claim 8: Myers discloses A system for vehicle control adaptation to external environmental conditions [[0018]; a vehicle control system 100 within a vehicle that includes a wind detection system 104. An automated driving/assistance system 102 may be used to automate or control operation of a vehicle or to provide assistance to a human driver.] comprising: a controller situated within a vehicle and configured to access, from a server external relative to the vehicle, a road map, weather data, and roadway data, wherein; the road map comprises geographically mapped condition data; the weather data comprises a sustained wind velocity, a sustained wind direction, and a wind gust level [[0026] & [0036]; For example, data analysis module 218 can analyze one or more types of data from image processing module 208, LIDAR processing module 210, radar processing module 212, sensor fusion module 214, data collection module 216, or any other source of data. In some embodiments, dangerous wind situations are determined based on a wind speed, wind direction (e.g., substantially perpendicular to the vehicle's direction of travel), detected wind gusts or wind shear, and the like. (...) The wind detection system also receives 504 map data associated with the vehicle's current geographic location. This map data provides information such as the roadway orientation ahead of the vehicle, locations of natural or man-made windbreaks, areas of known high wind conditions, and the like. The map data can be accessed from the vehicle's own map information (e.g., as part of the vehicle's navigation system) or from an external map data source.]; and (...) the controller is further configured to receive measurement data from one or more sensors situated within the vehicle [[0025]; A data collection module 216 collects data from multiple sources, such as image processing module 208, LIDAR processing module 210, radar processing module 212, sensor fusion module 214, and other vehicle components, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, and the like. The accelerometer and gyroscope information is useful, for example, to detect pitch and yaw movements that may be caused by high winds near the vehicle.]; the controller is further configured to determine a wind impact on the vehicle based on the weather data and the measurement data [[0022] & [0025]; A path may also be determined based on a route that maneuvers the vehicle to avoid or mitigate the impact of high winds near the vehicle. The sensor systems/devices 106-110 and 114 may be used to obtain real-time sensor data so that the automated driving/assistance system 102 can assist a driver or drive a vehicle in real-time. (...) data collection module 216 may receive (or access) data from additional data sources, such as map data associated with an area near the vehicle's current geographic location, weather data in the current geographic location, and any other type of data from any data source]; the controller is further configured to generate a feedback and a control based on the criticality of wind impact on the vehicle [[0018]; the automated driving/assistance system 102 may control one or more of braking, steering, seat belt tension, acceleration, lights, alerts, driver notifications, radio, vehicle locks, or any other auxiliary systems of the vehicle. In another example, the automated driving/assistance system 102 may not be able to provide any control of the driving (e.g., steering, acceleration, or braking), but may provide notifications and alerts to assist a human driver in driving safely. Vehicle control system 100 includes wind detection system 104 that interacts with various components in the vehicle control system to detect and respond to dangerous wind situations. In one embodiment, wind detection system 104 detects a dangerous wind condition near the vehicle (e.g., a high cross-wind or wind shear ahead of the vehicle) and adjusts one or more vehicle operations to avoid or mitigate the impact of the high winds, such as slowing the vehicle or maneuvering the vehicle near a natural or man-made windbreak]; the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle (…) while the sustained wind velocity exceeds a first predetermined threshold [[0032]; If the wind condition is determined 410 to be dangerous, the wind detection system determines 412 a best action to avoid or mitigate the impact of the wind. For example, the best action may include one or more of: reducing the speed of the vehicle, parking the vehicle near a natural windbreak, maneuvering the vehicle close to a man-made windbreak, positioning the vehicle to face the wind (or point the rear of the vehicle into the wind), and the like.]; and (…) while the sustained wind velocity exceeds a second predetermined threshold, wherein the second predetermined threshold is greater than the first predetermined threshold [[0030] & [0032]; The severity of the wind conditions may be ranked on a numeric scale, such as 0-10, where “0” represents no wind and “10” represents an extremely dangerous wind condition. (...) Method 400 continues by determining 410 whether the wind condition is dangerous (e.g., exceeds a threshold value or threshold severity ranking).) Note: first threshold = dangerous wind condition, second threshold = extremely dangerous wind condition.].
Myers does not explicitly disclose the roadway data comprises a reduced traction;
(…) the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle to under a current speed limit (…) the controller is further configured to apply a steering torque to a steering system of the vehicle to correct for the sustained wind velocity (…).
Foster teaches the roadway data comprises a reduced traction [[0663] & [0692]; The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to provide some or all of the data collected regarding the environmental conditions to the oversight system 350, for example, via the network communications subsystem 178. In some embodiments, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can provide the level of severity determined for each of the driving conditions as well as the corresponding location. The oversight system 350 may update the continuously updated map in part based on the information regarding the environmental conditions received from one or more autonomous vehicles 105 in a fleet. (...) the in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to monitor the road traction as one of the environmental conditions detected by the in-vehicle control computer 150. As used herein, road traction generally refers to the friction between a drive wheel of the autonomous vehicle 105 and the road surface. Low road traction generally refers to a road traction with a coefficient that is less than a threshold value, for example, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, although other coefficients are also possible]; the controller is further configured to apply a steering torque to a steering system of the vehicle to correct for the sustained wind velocity [[0074]; the second control input includes a steering control, and wherein the processor is further configured to dynamically adjust the steering control to compensate for side-wind effects and a super elevation rate due to the trailer load to a provide longitudinal control robustness for the steering control] (…).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Foster with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would improve safety via oversight system [Foster; [0347]; An autonomous truck may be in communication with an oversight system. The oversight system may serve many purposes, including: tracking the progress of one or more autonomous vehicles (e.g., an autonomous truck); tracking the progress of a fleet of autonomous vehicles; sending maneuvering instructions to one or more autonomous vehicles; monitoring the health of the autonomous vehicle(s); monitoring the status of the cargo of each autonomous vehicle in contact with the oversight system; facilitate communications between third parties (e.g., law enforcement, clients whose cargo is being carried) and each, or a specific, autonomous vehicle; allow for tracking of specific autonomous trucks in communication with the oversight system (e.g., third-party tracking of a subset of vehicles in a fleet); arranging maintenance service for the autonomous vehicles (e.g., oil changing, fueling, maintaining the levels of other fluids); alerting an affected autonomous vehicle of changes in traffic or weather that may adversely impact a route or delivery plan; pushing over the air updates to autonomous trucks to keep all components up to date; and other purposes or functions that improve the safety for the autonomous vehicle, its cargo, and its surroundings].
Myers in view of Foster do not explicitly teach (…) the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle to under a current speed limit (…).
Periwal teaches (…) the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle to under a current speed limit [[0104]; This weather-based information, coupled with the type of vehicle and the other information provided by the Speed Limit Database Management System, allows the Speed Limit Indicator, Speed Alerter, and Speed Reducer to work better. For example, suppose a driver is driving on a freeway through extremely stormy conditions, including a huge downpour of rain and high winds. The Control Unit may detect these extreme weather conditions through the use of sensors, information gathered from an online database or other source of current weather status, or another source, or a combination of information procured from different sources. Once this weather information is processed, the Control Unit may set the "safe speed limit" on the freeway currently being traversed by the vehicle at 50 mph, 15 mph less than the normally posted speed limit of 65 mph. This new speed limit data is sent to the Speed Limit Indicator, Speed Alerter, and Speed Reducer, which all work to assist the driver in maintaining a safe speed under the assumption that the current speed limit is 50 mph] (…).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Foster and Periwal with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle controls. The combination would improve driving habits and safety of drivers and organizations [Periwal; [0008]; The business process invention described herein includes a Speed Reduction, Alerting, and Logging System (hereinafter, SPIRAL System) that solves the long-lasting problem of drivers being ignorant of violating speed limits and thereby presenting a danger to themselves and the people around them. The SPIRAL system also enables drivers to improve their driving habits. Additionally, the SPIRAL system can enable drivers to automatically report their driving habits to a remote agency, company, or other external organization in order to receive some benefit, preference, or other conditional treatment by doing so, thus facilitating a business process that may benefit the driver, the external organization, or both].
Claim 15: The combination of Myers, Foster, and Periwal teach the system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated.
Myers discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the control comprises a warning indication to an occupant of the vehicle [[0035]; The wind detection system then implements 414 the best action and reports 416 the wind speed, wind direction, and geographic location to other vehicles or systems (e.g., using V2V or V2X communication systems). Additionally, the wind detection system may generate audible and/or visual warnings to the occupants of the vehicle regarding the dangerous wind condition. Further, the wind detection system may generate audible and/or visual driving instructions to maneuver the vehicle using the best action to avoid or mitigate the impact of the wind].
Claim 16: The claim(s) is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 8, respectively. The cited portions of Myers, Foster, and Periwal used in the rejection of claim(s) 8 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 16, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 16 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 8 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 22: The claim(s) is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 15, respectively. The cited portions of Myers, Foster, and Periwal used in the rejection of claim(s) 15 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 22, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 22 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 15 as outlined above.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17, & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger et al. US 20170328725 A1 (hereinafter “Schlesinger”).
Claim 1: Myers discloses A system for vehicle control adaptation to external environmental conditions [[0018]; a vehicle control system 100 within a vehicle that includes a wind detection system 104. An automated driving/assistance system 102 may be used to automate or control operation of a vehicle or to provide assistance to a human driver.] comprising: a controller situated within a vehicle and configured to receive, from an external source relative to the vehicle, weather data and roadway data, based on a location of the vehicle, wherein the weather data comprises a sustained wind velocity, a sustained wind direction, and a wind gust level [[0026] & [0036]; For example, data analysis module 218 can analyze one or more types of data from image processing module 208, LIDAR processing module 210, radar processing module 212, sensor fusion module 214, data collection module 216, or any other source of data. In some embodiments, dangerous wind situations are determined based on a wind speed, wind direction (e.g., substantially perpendicular to the vehicle's direction of travel), detected wind gusts or wind shear, and the like. (...) The wind detection system also receives 504 map data associated with the vehicle's current geographic location. This map data provides information such as the roadway orientation ahead of the vehicle, locations of natural or man-made windbreaks, areas of known high wind conditions, and the like. The map data can be accessed from the vehicle's own map information (e.g., as part of the vehicle's navigation system) or from an external map data source.]; and the controller is further configured to receive measurement data from one or more sensors situated within the vehicle [[0025]; A data collection module 216 collects data from multiple sources, such as image processing module 208, LIDAR processing module 210, radar processing module 212, sensor fusion module 214, and other vehicle components, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, and the like. The accelerometer and gyroscope information is useful, for example, to detect pitch and yaw movements that may be caused by high winds near the vehicle.]; the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle (…) while the sustained wind velocity exceeds a first predetermined threshold [[0032]; If the wind condition is determined 410 to be dangerous, the wind detection system determines 412 a best action to avoid or mitigate the impact of the wind. For example, the best action may include one or more of: reducing the speed of the vehicle, parking the vehicle near a natural windbreak, maneuvering the vehicle close to a man-made windbreak, positioning the vehicle to face the wind (or point the rear of the vehicle into the wind), and the like.]; and (…) while the sustained wind velocity exceeds a second predetermined threshold, wherein the second predetermined threshold is greater than the first predetermined threshold [[0030] & [0032]; The severity of the wind conditions may be ranked on a numeric scale, such as 0-10, where “0” represents no wind and “10” represents an extremely dangerous wind condition. (...) Method 400 continues by determining 410 whether the wind condition is dangerous (e.g., exceeds a threshold value or threshold severity ranking).) Note: first threshold = dangerous wind condition, second threshold = extremely dangerous wind condition.].
Myers does not explicitly disclose the roadway data comprises a reduced traction;
the controller is further configured to determine a route score based on the weather data, and the roadway data and the measurement data; (…) the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle to under a current speed limit (…) the controller is further configured to apply a steering torque to a steering system of the vehicle to correct for the sustained wind velocity (…).
Foster teaches the roadway data comprises a reduced traction [[0663] & [0692]; The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to provide some or all of the data collected regarding the environmental conditions to the oversight system 350, for example, via the network communications subsystem 178. In some embodiments, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can provide the level of severity determined for each of the driving conditions as well as the corresponding location. The oversight system 350 may update the continuously updated map in part based on the information regarding the environmental conditions received from one or more autonomous vehicles 105 in a fleet. (...) the in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to monitor the road traction as one of the environmental conditions detected by the in-vehicle control computer 150. As used herein, road traction generally refers to the friction between a drive wheel of the autonomous vehicle 105 and the road surface. Low road traction generally refers to a road traction with a coefficient that is less than a threshold value, for example, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, although other coefficients are also possible]; the controller is further configured to apply a steering torque to a steering system of the vehicle to correct for the sustained wind velocity [[0074]; the second control input includes a steering control, and wherein the processor is further configured to dynamically adjust the steering control to compensate for side-wind effects and a super elevation rate due to the trailer load to a provide longitudinal control robustness for the steering control] (…).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Foster with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would improve safety via oversight system [Foster; [0347]; An autonomous truck may be in communication with an oversight system. The oversight system may serve many purposes, including: tracking the progress of one or more autonomous vehicles (e.g., an autonomous truck); tracking the progress of a fleet of autonomous vehicles; sending maneuvering instructions to one or more autonomous vehicles; monitoring the health of the autonomous vehicle(s); monitoring the status of the cargo of each autonomous vehicle in contact with the oversight system; facilitate communications between third parties (e.g., law enforcement, clients whose cargo is being carried) and each, or a specific, autonomous vehicle; allow for tracking of specific autonomous trucks in communication with the oversight system (e.g., third-party tracking of a subset of vehicles in a fleet); arranging maintenance service for the autonomous vehicles (e.g., oil changing, fueling, maintaining the levels of other fluids); alerting an affected autonomous vehicle of changes in traffic or weather that may adversely impact a route or delivery plan; pushing over the air updates to autonomous trucks to keep all components up to date; and other purposes or functions that improve the safety for the autonomous vehicle, its cargo, and its surroundings].
Myers in view of Foster do not explicitly teach the controller is further configured to determine a route score based on the weather data, and the roadway data and the measurement data; (…) the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle to under a current speed limit (…).
Periwal teaches (…) the controller is further configured to limit a speed of the vehicle to under a current speed limit [[0104]; This weather-based information, coupled with the type of vehicle and the other information provided by the Speed Limit Database Management System, allows the Speed Limit Indicator, Speed Alerter, and Speed Reducer to work better. For example, suppose a driver is driving on a freeway through extremely stormy conditions, including a huge downpour of rain and high winds. The Control Unit may detect these extreme weather conditions through the use of sensors, information gathered from an online database or other source of current weather status, or another source, or a combination of information procured from different sources. Once this weather information is processed, the Control Unit may set the "safe speed limit" on the freeway currently being traversed by the vehicle at 50 mph, 15 mph less than the normally posted speed limit of 65 mph. This new speed limit data is sent to the Speed Limit Indicator, Speed Alerter, and Speed Reducer, which all work to assist the driver in maintaining a safe speed under the assumption that the current speed limit is 50 mph] (…).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Foster and Periwal with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle controls. The combination would improve driving habits and safety of drivers and organizations [Periwal; [0008]; The business process invention described herein includes a Speed Reduction, Alerting, and Logging System (hereinafter, SPIRAL System) that solves the long-lasting problem of drivers being ignorant of violating speed limits and thereby presenting a danger to themselves and the people around them. The SPIRAL system also enables drivers to improve their driving habits. Additionally, the SPIRAL system can enable drivers to automatically report their driving habits to a remote agency, company, or other external organization in order to receive some benefit, preference, or other conditional treatment by doing so, thus facilitating a business process that may benefit the driver, the external organization, or both].
Myers in view of Foster and Periwal do not explicitly teach the controller is further configured to determine a route score based on the weather data, and the roadway data and the measurement data.
Schlesinger teaches the controller is further configured to determine a route score based on the weather data, and the roadway data and the measurement data [[0015] & [0163]; Route scores of the routes are determined based on the preference weights and a suggested route is provided to the user based on the route scores. Examples of route preferences include a preference for main route components that are more frequently used by many users, for route components that are more familiar to the user, for safer or less hazardous route components, for route components that have better cellular reception, and for route components that have better weather conditions, such as less windy route components or route components where the user is less likely to have the sun in his or her eyes. (...) The computer-implemented system of any of embodiments 13-16, wherein the determining of the route score comprises: determining, for each route component of a plurality of route components of the route, a respective estimated time of traversal of the route component; forecasting, for each route component of a plurality of route components of the route, a weather condition (e.g., rain, wind, sun, etc.) of the route component based on the respective estimated time of traversal; and determining the route score from the forecasted weather characteristic of each of the plurality of route components].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle controls. The combination would improve route-planning resource management [Schlesinger; [0019]; contrary to conventional technologies, unacceptable routes that would conventionally be provided to and/or evaluated for users are filtered out (e.g., before or after a route is completely generated). This preserves the computational power that would otherwise be utilized in determining and/or evaluating the deficient routes. Also, in implementations where the filtering is performed server-side, network resources are preserved as they are not wasted on transmitting deficient routes. In additional respects, by filtering the routes, the user interface may be simplified by suggesting fewer routes of highly overall desirability to the user. In at least these ways, embodiments of the present disclosure improve computer-assisted route-planning technology].
Claim 2: The combination of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Myers discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the external source is crowd sourced automatically from a plurality of other vehicles [[0027]; a vehicle may communicate a dangerous wind condition to other nearby vehicles.].
Claim 3: The combination of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Myers does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Foster teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the roadway data further comprises traffic data [[0352]; The operator may be made aware of situations affecting one or more autonomous vehicles in communication with or being monitored by the oversight system that the affected autonomous vehicle(s) may not be aware of. Such situations may include: irregular or sudden changes in traffic flow (e.g., traffic jam or accident)].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Foster with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would improve safety via oversight system [Foster; [0347]; An autonomous truck may be in communication with an oversight system. The oversight system may serve many purposes, including: tracking the progress of one or more autonomous vehicles (e.g., an autonomous truck); tracking the progress of a fleet of autonomous vehicles; sending maneuvering instructions to one or more autonomous vehicles; monitoring the health of the autonomous vehicle(s); monitoring the status of the cargo of each autonomous vehicle in contact with the oversight system; facilitate communications between third parties (e.g., law enforcement, clients whose cargo is being carried) and each, or a specific, autonomous vehicle; allow for tracking of specific autonomous trucks in communication with the oversight system (e.g., third-party tracking of a subset of vehicles in a fleet); arranging maintenance service for the autonomous vehicles (e.g., oil changing, fueling, maintaining the levels of other fluids); alerting an affected autonomous vehicle of changes in traffic or weather that may adversely impact a route or delivery plan; pushing over the air updates to autonomous trucks to keep all components up to date; and other purposes or functions that improve the safety for the autonomous vehicle, its cargo, and its surroundings].
Claim 4: The combination of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Myers does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Schlesinger discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to generate a control based on the route score [[0118]; a single route is suggested to the user and is automatically implemented in a route planning application on the user device. Implementing a route can comprise automatically initiating navigation functionality on the user device (e.g., GPS routing and tracking)].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Schlesinger with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle controls. The combination would improve route-planning resource management [Schlesinger; [0019]; contrary to conventional technologies, unacceptable routes that would conventionally be provided to and/or evaluated for users are filtered out (e.g., before or after a route is completely generated). This preserves the computational power that would otherwise be utilized in determining and/or evaluating the deficient routes. Also, in implementations where the filtering is performed server-side, network resources are preserved as they are not wasted on transmitting deficient routes. In additional respects, by filtering the routes, the user interface may be simplified by suggesting fewer routes of highly overall desirability to the user. In at least these ways, embodiments of the present disclosure improve computer-assisted route-planning technology].
Claim 5: The combination of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Myers discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the measurement data comprise a velocity of the vehicle, a steering angle of the vehicle, and
a yaw rate of the vehicle [[0020] & [0025]; The vehicle control system 100 may include vehicle control actuators 120 to control various aspects of the driving of the vehicle such as electric motors, switches or other actuators, to control braking, acceleration, steering, seat belt tension, door locks, or the like. (...) Wind detection system 104 also includes a sensor fusion module 214 that fuses data from multiple sensors, cameras, and data sources, as discussed herein. (...) The accelerometer and gyroscope information is useful, for example, to detect pitch and yaw movements that may be caused by high winds near the vehicle].
Claim 6: The combination of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger teach the system of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated.
Myers discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the control comprises the steering torque applied to the steering system of the vehicle [[0020]; The vehicle control system 100 may include vehicle control actuators 120 to control various aspects of the driving of the vehicle such as electric motors, switches or other actuators, to control braking, acceleration, steering, (…)].
Claim 7: The combination of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger teach the system of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated.
Myers discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the control comprises the limiting of the speed of the vehicle [[0032]; If the wind condition is determined 410 to be dangerous, the wind detection system determines 412 a best action to avoid or mitigate the impact of the wind. For example, the best action may include one or more of: reducing the speed of the vehicle, parking the vehicle near a natural windbreak, maneuvering the vehicle close to a man-made windbreak, positioning the vehicle to face the wind (or point the rear of the vehicle into the wind), and the like].
Claim 9: The combination of Myers, Foster, and Periwal teach the system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated. Myers does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Schlesinger discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the road map is a shared map of road criticality for a geographic area [[0102]; outing engine 260 determines the preference metric using traffic statistics, such as those that may be acquired by data collection component 215 from a department of traffic database, and/or from analyzing GPS data from user devices. As another example, mapping data can indicate which route components or portions thereof correspond to main roads, such as highways, side streets, side roads, and the like. The frequency can be extracted from this road type or other mapping data].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Schlesinger with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle controls. The combination would improve route-planning resource management [Schlesinger; [0019]; contrary to conventional technologies, unacceptable routes that would conventionally be provided to and/or evaluated for users are filtered out (e.g., before or after a route is completely generated). This preserves the computational power that would otherwise be utilized in determining and/or evaluating the deficient routes. Also, in implementations where the filtering is performed server-side, network resources are preserved as they are not wasted on transmitting deficient routes. In additional respects, by filtering the routes, the user interface may be simplified by suggesting fewer routes of highly overall desirability to the user. In at least these ways, embodiments of the present disclosure improve computer-assisted route-planning technology].
Claim(s) 10-14: The claim(s) are directed towards a system of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 3, 2, 5, 6, & 7, respectively. The cited portions of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger used in the rejection of claim(s) 3, 2, 5, 6, & 7 teach the same steps to perform the system of claim(s) 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 3, 2, 5, 6, & 7 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 17 & 21: The claim(s) are directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 5 & 2, respectively. The cited portions of Myers, Foster, Periwal, and Schlesinger used in the rejection of claim(s) 5 & 2 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 17 & 21, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 17 & 21 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 5 & 2 as outlined above.
Claim 20: The combination of Myers, Foster, and Periwal teach the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Myers does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 20.
Schlesinger discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising generating a route criticality score based on the location of the vehicle and a possible route of the vehicle [[0066] & [0075]; A routing request can further include a beginning location, which may be specified by the user using the user device or may be inferred from sensor data. The beginning location specifies a geographic beginning for routes provided by routing engine 260 in response to the routing request. (...) routing engine 260 uses one or more preference weights to generate route scores, such as route scores 258. The route scores can be generated from a route metric that comprises preference weights from one or more preference weight metrics. A route metric can quantify an overall level of desirability of a corresponding route (or portion thereof) based on the one or more route preferences factored into the route metric. A route corresponding to a higher route score corresponds to a more desirable route than a route corresponding to a relatively lower route score].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers in view of Schlesinger with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle controls. The combination would improve route-planning resource management [Schlesinger; [0019]; contrary to conventional technologies, unacceptable routes that would conventionally be provided to and/or evaluated for users are filtered out (e.g., before or after a route is completely generated). This preserves the computational power that would otherwise be utilized in determining and/or evaluating the deficient routes. Also, in implementations where the filtering is performed server-side, network resources are preserved as they are not wasted on transmitting deficient routes. In additional respects, by filtering the routes, the user interface may be simplified by suggesting fewer routes of highly overall desirability to the user. In at least these ways, embodiments of the present disclosure improve computer-assisted route-planning technology].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Marlett et al. (US 20230083999 A1) discloses a vehicle control system employing acoustic and impact sensors for sensing acoustics and vibrations at a vehicle to detect environmental conditions and provide appropriate vehicle control and driver warnings according to the environmental conditions. The acoustics may include sounds generated by objects in the external environment surrounding the vehicle or sounds generated by impacts on the vehicle. The vibrations may include vibrations of the vehicle generated by the sounds generated by objects in the external environment surrounding the vehicle or vibrations of the vehicle generated by the impacts on the vehicle.
Keppler et al. (US 20140200766 A1) discloses a side wind assistant for a vehicle and a method for the operation of the side wind assistant involve detecting a side wind disturbance acting on the vehicle and reacting to the side wind disturbance by carrying out a side wind compensation intervention to at least partially compensate for the influence of the side wind disturbance, at least when an intervention threshold has been exceeded. The side wind assistant thus reacts to the side wind disturbance in a frequency selective manner in which the frequency selectivity is controlled depending on the side wind compensation or a state of the side wind assistant correlating with the side wind compensation intervention. In particular, the frequency selectivity is controlled depending on whether the side wind compensation intervention is carried out or not carried out, and depending on the duration of the side wind compensation intervention.
Styles et al. (US 20170291600 A1) discloses Methods and systems are provided for adjusting engine operation based on wirelessly received weather data in conjunction with engine sensor outputs. In one example, a method may comprise receiving a first measurement of a weather parameter from one or more engine sensors and a second measurement of the weather parameter from weather data, the weather data provided by a wireless weather service. The method may further comprise determining accuracies for the first and second measurements, generating an estimate of the weather parameter based on the accuracies of the first and second measurements, and adjusting at least one engine operating parameter based on the generated estimate.
Althoff et al. (US 20230391350 A1) discloses disclosed herein are systems, methods, and computer program products for vehicle path planning. The methods comprise: estimating a current state of a vehicle based on sensor data; generating a control error representing a difference between the estimated current state of the vehicle and a desired state of the vehicle as described by a previously published trajectory; comparing the control error to a threshold value; generating a first plan for the vehicle using an open-loop path planning approach when the control error is below the threshold value or a second plan for the vehicle using a closed-loop path planning approach when the control error is above the threshold value; and causing the vehicle to execute the first or second plan.
Bromand et al. (US 20230063839 A1) discloses apparatus, methods and computer-readable medium are provided for processing wind noise. Audio input is processed by receiving an audio input. A wind noise level representative of a wind noise at the microphone array is measured using the audio input and a determination is made, based on the wind noise level, whether to perform either (i) a wind noise suppression process on the audio input on-device, or (ii) the wind noise suppression process on the audio input on-device and an audio reconstruction process incloud.
Lawrence et al. (US 20220003556 A1) discloses techniques are disclosed to determine driver scoring that consider road quality and/or conditions in driver score computations. In contrast to the conventional approaches, the use of road conditions and/or road quality in the computation of driver scores allows for the consideration of road conditions and/or quality to improve upon conventional scoring techniques.
Armstrong et al. (US 20230245509 A1) discloses a safety system characterized in that centralized information indicative of safe vehicle performance expectations along a roadway in consideration of the predicted weather is transmitted to a given vehicle and wherein said given vehicle may have an on-board safety unit for adjusting the vehicle operation to reflect deviations in the performance of the given vehicle relative to said safe vehicle performance expectations.
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 Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached on (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights