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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/09/2023 and 05/09/2024 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-31 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-31 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A method comprising: obtaining information about a path that an autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the autonomous vehicle through an environment;
and generating 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, 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,
and where a velocity of the autonomous vehicle is based on the virtual envelope.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generating a virtual envelope” such that the length of the virtual envelope is based on the predefined duration that the vehicle can travel along the path or a duration that the vehicle can travel without stopping in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing the envelope and changing its length based on the predefined duration. This can further be done in the mind (i.e. generating a buffer zone). Since this limitation can be done in the mind and/or on a piece of paper with a pen, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claims 15 and 16.
Claim 2:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is a first autonomous vehicle and the path is a first path; and wherein generating 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of identifying an intersection of a first path and second path of each respective vehicle can be done by looking at their trajectories and seeing where they intersect, which is a process that can be done in the mind, and/or by drawing the trajectories and seeing if they intersect. Next, the limitation of determining that the first vehicle will have to stop prior to the intersection in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination, which is a process that can be done in the mind. Furthermore, basing a length of the envelope based on how much time the vehicle can travel before stopping prior to the intersection in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing the envelope based on the received time information. Since these limitations can be done in the mind and/or via pen/paper, then these limitations recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 5, 17, and 20.
Claim 3:
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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of making a determination that the second vehicle takes precedence over the first vehicle, and that the first vehicle will have to stop prior to the intersection in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination, which is a process that can be done mentally. The user can also set a precedence of one vehicle vs another, which is a process that can also be done mentally, and/or via pen/paper (i.e. setting a precedence). Since this limitation recites a mental process, then this limitation recites an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 6, 18, and 21.
Claim 4:
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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of making a prediction in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a prediction, which can be done in the mind. Furthermore, setting a precedence based on a prediction can also be done in the mind, and/or on paper/pen. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 7, 19, and 22.
Claim 8:
wherein generating the 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of identifying a region where the vehicle is prohibited from entering encompasses a user making an identification, which is a process that can be done mentally. The user can see where the vehicle is prohibited from entering. Next, basing the length of the envelope on a proximity to the region is a step that a user can do by drawing a length of the envelope based on how close the vehicle is from the region. Since this limitation can be drawn on a paper via a pen, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 23.
Claim 9:
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
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of identifying a region where the vehicle has primacy encompasses a user making an identification of a region that the vehicle has primacy, which is a process that can be done mentally. Furthermore, the limitation of extending the virtual envelope is a limitation that can be drawn by the user (i.e. drawing a bigger length for the envelope). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 24.
Claim 10:
wherein generating the 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of updating a shape of the envelope dynamically based on the velocity of the vehicle encompasses a user drawing the shape of the envelope based on the received velocity of the vehicle. This can be done by drawing a bigger shape when the vehicle is going faster. Since this limitation can be done by drawing on a paper via a pen, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 25.
Claim 11:
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.
Claim 12:
wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises changing at least a size of the first dimension.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the dimensions of the virtual envelope can be drawn (i.e. in the context of the claim), such that the first dimension is parallel to the path and the second dimension is perpendicular to the first. Since this can be drawn, then this limitation recites a mental process. Similarly, changing a size of the first dimension is a process that can be drawn by a user, and therefore recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 26-27.
Claim 13:
wherein generating the virtual envelope comprises: combining polygons along the path to form a shape of the virtual envelope.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of combining polygons to form a shape of the envelope in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a drawing by combining the polygons such that the shape of the envelope is formed. Combining polygons can be done on a piece of paper via a pen, and therefore recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 28.
Claim 14:
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.
Regarding claim 14, this limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing the envelope in 3 dimensions, which further includes the height of envelope. Since this limitation can be drawn by a user, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 29.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A method comprising: obtaining information about a path that an autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the autonomous vehicle through an environment;
and generating 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, 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,
and where a velocity of the autonomous vehicle is based on the virtual envelope.
Claim 30:
wherein the one or more processing devices are part of a fleet management system that is external to the autonomous device; wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to execute instructions to transfer data representing the virtual envelope to the autonomous device; and wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises an on-board control system that is configured to control the velocity of the autonomous vehicle based on the envelope.
Claim 31:
wherein the one or more processing devices are part of an on-board control system of the autonomous device.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining information about a path that an autonomous vehicle is to travel during movement of the autonomous vehicle through an environment”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, obtaining step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. Furthermore, the additional limitation of “wherein a velocity of the autonomous vehicle is based on the virtual envelope” is insignificant post-solution activity, since it is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of controlling the velocity of the vehicle based on the envelope).Additionally, the additional limitation of “transfer data representing the virtual envelope to the autonomous device” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same rational applies to independent claims 15 and 16.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “obtaining” and “transferring” data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining data” and “transferring data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor for obtaining and transferring data. The step of “obtaining” data is taught in the primary reference Paschall Charles et al. WO2019104045A1, see at least Para. 0021. Accordingly, the step of collecting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Further, the step of “transferring” data is taught in the primary reference Paschall Charles et al. WO2019104045A1, see Para. 0028. Accordingly, the step of transferring (i.e. transmitting) data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
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).
Regarding claim 1,
Charles discloses:
A method comprising: 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 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.)
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.
Regarding claim 8,
Charles discloses:
wherein generating the 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 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 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 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 are part of a fleet management system that is external to the autonomous device; (See at least Fig. 3, wherein the fleet management computers 310 are part of a fleet management system that is external to the autonomous robot. Additionally, see Para. 0028, “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”)” and Para. 0044, “safety module 346 may be configured to perform operations similar to those described with reference to navigation module 326 and safety module 328.” Safety module 346 is part of the fleet management computer 310, which maintains a safety zone (i.e. virtual envelope) around the autonomous vehicle.)
wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to execute instructions to transfer data representing 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 autonomous vehicle comprises an on-board control system that is configured to control the velocity of the autonomous vehicle based on the envelope. (See at least Para. 0063, “an increase of speed”.)
Regarding claim 31,
Charles discloses:
wherein the one or more processing devices 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 and Jussi further in view of Burns US6,393362B1.
Regarding claim 2,
Charles and Jussi 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 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 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 and Jussi 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 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 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 and Jussi 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 and Jussi further in view of Jeong et al. US20240176357A1 (henceforth Jeong).
Regarding claim 9
Charles 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, 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 and Jussi further in view of Trepagnier et al. US20120316725A1 (henceforth Trepagnier).
Regarding claim 14,
Charles 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, and Trepagnier discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tahir et al. US20190361452A1 discloses controlling a vehicle that includes using velocity vectors of obstacles in the vehicle's environment to determining boundaries of the one or more obstacles and thereby generate a velocity space that may include velocity vectors for the vehicle and which are represented as collision cones. The using an identified velocity vector in combination with the velocity vectors of the one or more obstacles to produce a maximum motion in of the vehicle towards a target location while avoiding all determined collision cones. (See Abstract)
Caldwell et al. US20190355257A1 discloses a vehicle can capture sensor data while traversing an environment and can provide the sensor data to computing system(s). The sensor data can indicate agent(s) in the environment and the computing system(s) can determine, based on the sensor data, a planned path through the environment relative to the agent(s). The computing system(s) can also determine lateral distance(s) to the agent(s) from the planned path. In an example, the computing system(s) can determine modified distance(s) based at least in part on the lateral distance(s) and information about the agents. The computing system can determine a drive envelope based on the modified distance(s) and can determine a trajectory in the drive envelope. (See abstract)
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