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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 04/15/2026. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20-21, 23-25, 27-28 and 30-31 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled nor have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-31 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, since the autonomous vehicle is controlled to move within the virtual envelop that is generated based on the method, which recites a practical application. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-31 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Paschall Charles et al. WO2019104045A1, Puura Jussi WO2022063406A1, and McHugh et al. US20170031358A1. See the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1, 15, and 16 recite the new limitation “controlling the autonomous vehicle to move within the virtual envelope without changing the virtual envelope”. The added limitation appears to be silent in the specifications filed 05/12/2023. The specifications discloses that the “robot is free to maneuver within the virtual envelope without changing its path” (Column 18, lines 27-28), but it does not specifically state that the autonomous vehicle is controlled to move within the virtual envelope without changing the virtual envelope. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-14, and 17-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 16, and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 15-16, 23, 25, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paschall Charles et al. WO2019104045A1 (henceforth Charles) in view of Puura Jussi WO2022063406A1 (henceforth Jussi) and McHugh et al. US20170031358A1 (henceforth McHugh).
Regarding claim 1,
Charles discloses:
A method comprising: at a fleet management system. (Para. 0019, “fleet management computers”)
obtaining information about a path that an autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the autonomous vehicle through an environment; (See at least Para. 0021, “an autonomous mobile robot may include a navigation system or navigation computer that utilizes a first set of sensors and/or obstacle detection sensors to generate and maintain a local planning zone around an autonomous mobile robot. The obstacle detection sensors are configured to detect an object or obstruction in a path of the autonomous mobile robot as it navigates through a facility or workspace to complete a task. Further, the navigation system is configured to utilize the data captured by the obstacle detection sensors to generate new routes or path to navigate the facility/workspace while completing a task.” Information about a path that an autonomous vehicle is to travel is obtained.)
and generating data for a virtual envelope that surrounds the autonomous vehicle and that has at least two dimensions that are greater than two corresponding dimensions of the autonomous vehicle, (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0022, “The new routes or paths may include instructions for changing a current speed, direction, or steering for the autonomous mobile robot to utilize to avoid and navigate past a detected object or obstacle. The autonomous mobile robot may include a separate safety verification system that utilizes one or more safety sensors to generate and maintain a safe zone around the autonomous mobile robot as it navigates a facility or workspace.” A virtual envelop is generated that surrounds the autonomous vehicle, as shown in at least Fig. 1. The virtual envelop is bigger than the dimensions of the autonomous vehicle, and therefore it has at least two dimensions that are greater than two corresponding dimensions of the vehicle. )
and where a velocity of the autonomous vehicle is based on the virtual envelope. (See at least Fig. 8 and Para. 0063, “ FIG. 8 also depicts an updated size and shape for the safety zone 800 as it navigates the passage 806 and passes the objects 814 and 816. At the end of the scenario depicted in FIG. 8 (right part of the FIG.) the shape and size of the safety zone 800 surpasses the opposite barrier 818 to account for the lack of detected objects which is in turn reflected by an increased speed for the local travel plan generated by the navigation computer of autonomous mobile robot 822.” The velocity of the autonomous vehicle is based on the virtual envelope.)
and at the autonomous vehicle: receiving the data for the virtual envelope (See at least Para. 0022, “The autonomous mobile robot may include a separate safety verification system that utilizes one or more safety sensors to generate and maintain a safe zone around the autonomous mobile robot as it navigates a facility or workspace”. Data is received for the virtual envelope.)
detecting an obstacle. (See at least Para. 0022, “a detected object or obstacle”.)
Charles does not specifically state where a length of the virtual envelope along the path is based on at least one of (i) a predefined duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path or (ii) a duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path without stopping. However, Jussi teaches:
where a length of the virtual envelope along the path is based on at least one of (i) a predefined duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path or (ii) a duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path without stopping. (See at least Page 8, lines 3-9, “The dynamic obstacle detection zone may refer generally to a dynamically updated area towards driving direction of the vehicle, defined by a dynamically adapted 5 parameter set. The obstacle detection zone may also be referred to as a safety or monitoring area, zone, or envelope, for example. The monitored obstacle detection zone can be a forecasted space requirement for the vehicle dependent on the time required for full stop given the current speed and steering angle of the vehicle, which may include or added with safety margin(s) (which may be based on error margins of the input data).”. The length of the virtual envelope is based on at least a duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path without stopping (i.e. time required for full stop).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles to incorporate the teachings of Jussi to include “where a length of the virtual envelope along the path is based on at least one of (i) a predefined duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path or (ii) a duration that the autonomous vehicle can travel along the path without stopping” in order to determine a “forecasted space requirement for the vehicle dependent on time required for full stop” (Page 8, lines 6-8, Jussi), which would create a more robust dynamic virtual envelope, and would further increase the safety of the vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles and Jussi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Charles does not specifically state controlling the autonomous vehicle to move within the virtual envelope without changing the virtual envelope.
However, McHugh teaches:
controlling the autonomous vehicle to move within the virtual envelope without changing the virtual envelope. (See at least Para. 0027, “The controller may be operative, when the vehicle is operating in the autonomous mode and the vehicle comes within a predetermined range of the perimeter, to inhibit the vehicle from crossing the perimeter”. A fixed spatial virtual perimeter is defined and stored such that the autonomous vehicle is controlled to remain within it. Since the vehicle is inhibited from crossing the virtual perimeter, then the autonomous vehicle is controlled to move within the virtual envelope without changing the virtual envelope.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles to incorporate the teachings of McHugh to include “controlling the autonomous vehicle to move within the virtual envelope without changing the virtual envelope” such that the vehicle is “responsive to a safety perimeter” (Para. 0040, McHugh), which would create a more robust and safe system for an autonomous vehicle that is traveling. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles and McHugh. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8,
Charles discloses:
wherein generating the data for virtual envelope comprises: identifying a region where the autonomous vehicle is prohibited from entering; and basing a length of the virtual envelope on a proximity to the region. (See at least Fig. 8 and Para. 0062-0063, wherein the length of the virtual envelop is based on the proximity of the region that the vehicle is prohibited from entering.)
Regarding claim 10,
Charles discloses:
wherein generating the data for virtual envelope comprises updating a shape of the virtual envelope dynamically based on at least one of a velocity of the autonomous vehicle or obstacles in the path or within a predefined distance of the path.
(See at least Fig. 7 and Para. 0060, “The default mode includes a safety zone 702 that extends and takes a different shape based on the various speeds 704-710 around the autonomous mobile robot 700. As depicted in FIG. 7, the default mode’s safety zone 702 covers at least a 180 degree arc projecting from the front facing of the autonomous mobile robot 700 to identify and detect incoming objects using all the safety sensors and/or object detection sensors of the autonomous mobile robot 700 while it navigates a facility”. The shape of the virtual envelope is updated dynamically based on the velocity of the autonomous vehicle.)
Regarding claim 15,
Charles, McHugh, and Jussi discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 16,
Charles, McHugh, and Jussi discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 23,
Charles discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 25,
Charles discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 10 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 30,
Charles discloses:
wherein the one or more processing devices of the fleet management system are configured to execute instructions to transfer the data for the virtual envelope to the autonomous device; (See at least Para. 0069, “the fleet management computers 310 and/or the autonomous mobile robot 312 (e.g., utilizing at least one of the safety module 328/346 and the navigation module 326/344) shown in FIG. 3, may perform the processes 1100-1400 of FIGS. 11-14.” The process of Fig. 12 includes generating the virtual envelope of the autonomous device. Further see Para. 0028, “the navigation computer 200 may receive or utilize information from one or more external sensors 212 (i.e., sensors not operatively attached but in communication with the autonomous mobile robot). For example, a facility or workspace may include a number of sensors similar to the object detection sensors 206 that capture sensor data and wirelessly communicate the data to the navigation computer 200 for local route planning and object detection” and Para. 0069, “The safety verification computer may dynamically adjust the size and shape of the second bounded area based on updated speed information and/or other data such as data from external sensors”. Data that represents the virtual envelope is transferred to the autonomous vehicle’s computer.)
and wherein the one or more processing devices of autonomous vehicle are part of an on-board control system that is configured to control a velocity of the autonomous vehicle based on the virtual envelope. (See at least Para. 0063, “an increase of speed”.)
Regarding claim 31,
Charles discloses:
wherein the one or more processing devices of the autonomous vehicle are part of an on-board control system of the autonomous device. (See at least Fig. 3, processors 320, and Para. 0019.)
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-13, 17-18, 20-21, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles, Jussi, and McHugh further in view of Burns US6,393362B1.
Regarding claim 2,
Charles, Jussi, and McHugh discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Charles and Jussi do not specifically state the limitation “wherein the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and the path is a first path; and wherein generating the data for the virtual envelope comprises: identifying an intersection of the first path and a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the second autonomous vehicle through the environment; determining that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the intersection and basing a length of the virtual envelope on how much time that the first autonomous vehicle can travel before stopping prior to the intersection and basing a length of the virtual envelope on how much time that the first autonomous vehicle can travel before stopping prior to the intersection.”
However, Burns teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and the path is a first path; and wherein generating the data for the virtual envelope comprises: identifying an intersection of the first path and a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the second autonomous vehicle through the environment; Determining that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the intersection; (See at least Fig. 6 and Column 6, lines 56-67, “the shape and the size of each safety envelope is related to the type of vehicle to which it is applied (a larger vehicle is obviously likely to occupy a larger area than a smaller vehicle). Similarly, when an approaching intersection location is identified based on potentially overlapping safety envelopes between approaching vehicles, a specific control protocol must be implemented. For example, one vehicle may be stopped or slowed down before the intersection location, while the other is allowed to continue uninterrupted, according to a predetermined logic of operational preferences (e.g., loaded trucks may have precedence).” An intersection of the first and second path is identified.)
and basing a length of the virtual envelope on how much time that the first autonomous vehicle can travel before stopping prior to the intersection.
(See at least Column 5, lines 31-44, “Obviously, though, the physical dimensions of the vehicle 32 extend beyond the point 42 and a correspondingly larger clear path along the trajectory 20 must be present as the vehicle passes through in order to avoid collisions with nearby obstacles. For example, the length and width of the vehicle 32 define its minimum physical operating space required when the vehicle is at rest. As the vehicle moves along the trajectory 20 under the control of the autonomous guidance system, additional factors must be accounted for to ensure safety, such as steering error, navigational guidance margins, and stopping distance variations due to load, equipment condition, road surface and grade, etc. Thus, the actual physical space required by the vehicle 32 to ensure its safe operation is greater than its size. “ The virtual envelop is based on the stopping distance of the vehicle, and the stopping distance is calculated by determining how long it will take for the vehicle to make a complete stop.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to “establish a potential zone of operational presence for each autonomous component in the system to ensure safety and efficiency” (See column 1, lines 9-11, Burns), which would create a more robust vehicle for avoiding hazards on the road and therefore enhance safety. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,
Charles and Jussi do not specifically state the limitation “determining that travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over travel of the first autonomous vehicle and, therefore, that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the intersection.” However, Burns teaches:
determining that travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over travel of the first autonomous vehicle and, therefore, that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the intersection
(See at least Fig. 6 and Column 6, lines 56-67, “the shape and the size of each safety envelope is related to the type of vehicle to which it is applied (a larger vehicle is obviously likely to occupy a larger area than a smaller vehicle). Similarly, when an approaching intersection location is identified based on potentially overlapping safety envelopes between approaching vehicles, a specific control protocol must be implemented. For example, one vehicle may be stopped or slowed down before the intersection location, while the other is allowed to continue uninterrupted, according to a predetermined logic of operational preferences (e.g., loaded trucks may have precedence).” It is determined that travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over travel of the first autonomous vehicle and therefore, the first autonomous vehicle stops prior to the intersection.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to “establish a potential zone of operational presence for each autonomous component in the system to ensure safety and efficiency” (See column 1, lines 9-11, Burns), which would create a more robust vehicle for avoiding hazards on the road and therefore enhance safety. Furthermore, this would “provide each moving vehicle with a zone of occupancy dedicated to the vehicle, so that the autonomous functions of the vehicle can proceed as programmed without interference by the guidance system for safety considerations so long as this zone is not seen as potentially overlapping with the corresponding zone of another vehicle. In essence, these safety envelopes constitute a part of the guidance protocol by which safety at switch points, crossings, and parallel paths is monitored and implemented in the autonomous guidance system” (See Column 7, lines 1-15, Burns). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Charles, Jussi, and McHugh discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Charles and Jussi do not specifically state the limitation “wherein the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and the path is a first path; and wherein generating the data for the virtual envelope comprises identifying a location where the first path is within a predefined distance of a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the second autonomous vehicle through the environment; determining that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the location; and basing a length of the virtual envelope on how much time that the first autonomous vehicle can travel before stopping prior to the location.”
However, Burns teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and the path is a first path; and wherein generating the data for the virtual envelope comprises identifying a location where the first path is within a predefined distance of a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the second autonomous vehicle through the environment; determining that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the location; (See at least Fig. 6 and Column 6, lines 56-67, “the shape and the size of each safety envelope is related to the type of vehicle to which it is applied (a larger vehicle is obviously likely to occupy a larger area than a smaller vehicle). Similarly, when an approaching intersection location is identified based on potentially overlapping safety envelopes between approaching vehicles, a specific control protocol must be implemented. For example, one vehicle may be stopped or slowed down before the intersection location, while the other is allowed to continue uninterrupted, according to a predetermined logic of operational preferences (e.g., loaded trucks may have precedence).” A location is identified where the first path is within a predefined distance of a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel (i.e. an intersection of the first and second path is identified). Is it then determined that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the location)
and basing a length of the virtual envelope on how much time that the first autonomous vehicle can travel before stopping prior to the location
(See at least Column 5, lines 31-44, “Obviously, though, the physical dimensions of the vehicle 32 extend beyond the point 42 and a correspondingly larger clear path along the trajectory 20 must be present as the vehicle passes through in order to avoid collisions with nearby obstacles. For example, the length and width of the vehicle 32 define its minimum physical operating space required when the vehicle is at rest. As the vehicle moves along the trajectory 20 under the control of the autonomous guidance system, additional factors must be accounted for to ensure safety, such as steering error, navigational guidance margins, and stopping distance variations due to load, equipment condition, road surface and grade, etc. Thus, the actual physical space required by the vehicle 32 to ensure its safe operation is greater than its size. “ The virtual envelop is based on the stopping distance of the vehicle, and the stopping distance is calculated by determining how long it will take for the vehicle to make a complete stop.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to “establish a potential zone of operational presence for each autonomous component in the system to ensure safety and efficiency” (See column 1, lines 9-11, Burns), which would create a more robust vehicle for avoiding hazards on the road and therefore enhance safety. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6,
Charles and Jussi do not specifically state the limitation “determining that travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over travel of the first autonomous vehicle and, therefore, that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the location.” However, Burns teaches:
determining that travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over travel of the first autonomous vehicle and, therefore, that the first autonomous vehicle will have to stop prior to the location
(See at least Fig. 6 and Column 6, lines 56-67, “the shape and the size of each safety envelope is related to the type of vehicle to which it is applied (a larger vehicle is obviously likely to occupy a larger area than a smaller vehicle). Similarly, when an approaching intersection location is identified based on potentially overlapping safety envelopes between approaching vehicles, a specific control protocol must be implemented. For example, one vehicle may be stopped or slowed down before the intersection location, while the other is allowed to continue uninterrupted, according to a predetermined logic of operational preferences (e.g., loaded trucks may have precedence).” It is determined that travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over travel of the first autonomous vehicle and therefore, the first autonomous vehicle stops prior to the location (i.e. the intersection).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to “establish a potential zone of operational presence for each autonomous component in the system to ensure safety and efficiency” (See column 1, lines 9-11, Burns), which would create a more robust vehicle for avoiding hazards on the road and therefore enhance safety. Furthermore, this would “provide each moving vehicle with a zone of occupancy dedicated to the vehicle, so that the autonomous functions of the vehicle can proceed as programmed without interference by the guidance system for safety considerations so long as this zone is not seen as potentially overlapping with the corresponding zone of another vehicle. In essence, these safety envelopes constitute a part of the guidance protocol by which safety at switch points, crossings, and parallel paths is monitored and implemented in the autonomous guidance system” (See Column 7, lines 1-15, Burns). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11,
Charles, Jussi, and McHugh discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Charles does not specifically state wherein the at least two dimensions comprise a first dimension that is parallel to at least part of the path and a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension. However, Burns teaches:
wherein the at least two dimensions comprise a first dimension that is parallel to at least part of the path and a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension. (See at least Fig. 6, wherein the first dimension is parallel to the path and the second dimension is perpendicular to the first dimension.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to “establish a potential zone of operational presence for each autonomous component in the system to ensure safety and efficiency” (See column 1, lines 9-11, Burns), which would create a more robust vehicle for avoiding hazards on the road and therefore enhance safety. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12,
Charles and Jussi does not specifically state wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises changing at least a size of the first dimension.
However, Burns teaches:
wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises changing at least a size of the first dimension. (See at least Column 3, lines 17-26, “the shape and size of the safety envelope is dynamically varied to meet safety requirements for current trajectory conditions facing the vehicle as it performs its autonomous function along its predetermined path. The safety envelope is changed according to a predetermined set of rules specific to the vehicle. Thus, this zone of potential presence represents a volume of assumed occupancy under given conditions and is dynamically adjusted for each vehicle as circumstances change during the performance of its autonomous function.” The shape and size is dynamically changed, which includes the first dimension.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to “establish a potential zone of operational presence for each autonomous component in the system to ensure safety and efficiency” (See column 1, lines 9-11, Burns), which would create a more robust vehicle for avoiding hazards on the road and therefore enhance safety. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the limitations as recited in claim 11.
Jussi further discloses:
wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises: combining polygons along the path to form a shape of the virtual envelope. (See at least Fig. 6 and Column 12 lines 3-14, wherein polygons are combined to form a shape of the virtual envelope.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles to incorporate the teachings of Jussi to include the limitation above in order to determine a “forecasted space requirement for the vehicle dependent on time required for full stop” (Page 8, lines 6-8, Jussi), which would create a more robust dynamic virtual envelope, and would further increase the safety of the vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Burns and Jussi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17,
Charles, Jussi, and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
However, Burns further teaches:
obtaining information about a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the second autonomous vehicle through the environment (See at least Fig. 6 and Column 7 lines 41-45, “each vehicle periodically broadcasts its position and safety-envelope function, the on-board data processor of each vehicle can monitor every other vehicle and ensure that intersecting trajectories”. Information about a second path that the second autonomous vehicle is to travel is obtained.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to be able to control traffic flow to “prevent the encroachment of any obstacle with the safety envelope of all traveling vehicles” (Column 7, lines 45-48, Burns), which would create a more safe environment for autonomous vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 20,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Burns further teaches:
obtaining information about a second path that a second autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the second autonomous vehicle through the environment (See at least Fig. 6 and Column 7 lines 41-45, “each vehicle periodically broadcasts its position and safety-envelope function, the on-board data processor of each vehicle can monitor every other vehicle and ensure that intersecting trajectories”. Information about a second path that the second autonomous vehicle is to travel is obtained.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Burns to include the limitation above in order to be able to control traffic flow to “prevent the encroachment of any obstacle with the safety envelope of all traveling vehicles” (Column 7, lines 45-48, Burns), which would create a more safe environment for autonomous vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Burns. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 21,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 26,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 11 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 27,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 12 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 28,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 13 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 4, 7, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles, Jussi, McHugh and Burns, further in view of Ghafouri et al. US20210163008A1 (henceforth Ghafouri).
Regarding claim 4,
Charles, Jussi, and Burns discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-3 above.
Charles does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over the travel of the first autonomous vehicle because the second autonomous vehicle is predicted to reach the intersection before the first autonomous vehicle.” However, Ghafouri teaches:
wherein the travel of the second autonomous vehicle takes precedence over the travel of the first autonomous vehicle because the second autonomous vehicle is predicted to reach the intersection before the first autonomous vehicle.
(See at least Para. 0046, “the autonomous vehicle 414 may assign the first vehicle 416 a first position in the order based on the first vehicle 416 arriving first at the intersection 402, assign itself a second position in the order based on the autonomous vehicle 414 arriving second at the intersection 402, assign the second vehicle 418 a third position in the order based on the second vehicle 418 arriving third at the intersection 402, and assign the third vehicle 420 a fourth position in the order when the third vehicle 420 arrives at the intersection 402.” Therefore, the vehicle that is predicted to arrive at the intersection first takes precedence over the other vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles, Jussi, and Burns to incorporate the teachings of Ghafouri to include the limitation above in order to further determine a right of way order of the vehicles in the interest zone (See Para. 0046, Ghafouri), which would create a more robust system for autonomous vehicles at an intersection. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, Burns, and Ghafouri. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh, Burns, and Ghafouri discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 19,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh, Burns, and Ghafouri discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 22,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh, Burns, and Ghafouri discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles, McHugh, and Jussi further in view of Jeong et al. US20240176357A1 (henceforth Jeong).
Regarding claim 9
Charles, McHugh, and Jussi discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Charles does not specifically state wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises: identifying a region where the autonomous vehicle has primacy; and extending the virtual envelope into the region prior to entry of one or more other autonomous vehicles into the region.
However, Jeong teaches:
wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises: identifying a region where the autonomous vehicle has primacy; and extending the virtual envelope into the region prior to entry of one or more other autonomous vehicles into the region.
(See at least Fig. 6 and Para. 0109-0115, wherein the virtual envelope is extended into the region prior to entry of the autonomous vehicle into the region. The region is identified where the autonomous vehicle has primacy (i.e. wherein vehicle 101 is determined to go first after stopping).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles and Jussi to incorporate the teachings of Jeong to include the limitation above in order to “avoid a collision of an autonomous vehicle and a control method thereof, which avoid a collision between vehicles that drive within a predetermined space and control the driving of the vehicles” (Para. 0002, Jeong) and “controlling the driving of an autonomous vehicle by recognizing a surrounding vehicle or robot while minimizing the stop of the autonomous vehicle attributable to the detection of an obstacle” (Para. 0010, Jeong). This would create a more robust and safe autonomous vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Jeong. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 24,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh, and Jeong discloses the same limitation as recited in claim 9 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles, Jussi, and McHugh further in view of Trepagnier et al. US20120316725A1 (henceforth Trepagnier).
Regarding claim 14,
Charles, McHugh, and Jussi discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Charles does not specifically state wherein the virtual envelope that surrounds the autonomous vehicle has at least three dimensions that are greater than three corresponding dimensions of the autonomous vehicle. However, Trepagnier teaches:
wherein the virtual envelope that surrounds the autonomous vehicle has at least three dimensions that are greater than three corresponding dimensions of the autonomous vehicle. (See at least Fig. 1B, wherein the height, width, and length of the projected envelop is greater than the three corresponding dimensions of the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charles to incorporate the teachings of Trepagnier to include the limitation above since “there exists a need to have a system and method for vehicular identification of stationary and moving objects in the path or coming into the path of the vehicle” (Para. 0008, Trepagnier). Having a virtual envelope that encompasses the three-dimensions of the vehicle would create a more robust virtual envelope that surrounds the autonomous vehicle which would further account for the height of the vehicle. This would create a more robust and safe autonomous vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Charles, Jussi, and Trepagnier. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 29,
Charles, Jussi, McHugh, and Trepagnier discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Conclusion
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights