Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 18 June 2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-29 are pending. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn. Claims 25-29 are new
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 26 March 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 26 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 26 March 2026 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Moore discloses first navigating with a controller to an alignment point in at least [0007], [0008], [0011], [0121], [0144] and [0157]-[0159], second navigating to a docking point in at least [0112], [0121], [0122], [0125]-[0129] and [0165] and third navigating relative to a fiducial in at least Figure 25, [0112], [0121], [0122], [0125]-[0129] and [0165]. Moore fails to disclose the controller being a Model Predictive Controller and said second navigating being with a cascade controller. However, Li teaches the controller being a Model Predictive Controller and said second navigating being with a cascade controller in at least [n0004] and [n0021]. Therefore, Moore as modified by Li discloses each and every limitation of the argued claim 12. See 35 USC 103 for further clarification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 23 and 27 be found allowable, claim 27 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19, 25 and 26 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “a docking point”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same docking point previously recited in claim 12 or not.
Claims 23 and 27 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “a cascade controller”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same cascade controller previously recited in claim 12 or not.
Claims 23 and 27 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “wherein said third navigating comprises a cascade controller”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, how “navigating” (e.g. a verb) could comprise a “controller” (e.g. a noun). Did Applicant mean to instead recite “wherein said third navigating is with a cascade controller” or “wherein said third navigating comprises using a cascade controller”?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12, 14, 18-21, 23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US20190155296A1) in view of Li (CN114253275A).
Regarding claim 12, Moore discloses method of docking a vehicle (see at least abstract) comprising: first navigating with a controller to an alignment point (see at least [0007], [0008], [0011], [0121], [0144] and [0157]-[0159]); second navigating to the docking point (see at least [0112], [0121], [0122], [0125]-[0129] and [0165]); and third navigating relative to a fiducial (see at least Figure 25, [0112], [0121], [0122], [0125]-[0129] and [0165]).
Moore fails to disclose the controller being a Model Predictive Controller and said second navigating being with a cascade controller. However, Li teaches the controller being a Model Predictive Controller and said second navigating being with a cascade controller (see at least [n0004] and [n0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore to incorporate the teachings of Li which teaches the controller being a Model Predictive Controller and said second navigating being with a cascade controller since they are both directed to robot (unmanned/autonomous vehicle) navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Li would increase accuracy of navigation in the overall system (see at least Li [n0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Moore as modified by Li discloses reckoning a position of a docking station relative to the vehicle (see at least Moore [0112] and [0125]).
Regarding claim 18, Moore as modified by Li discloses triggering a dock connector to initiate aligning and connecting with a vehicle connector (see at least Moore [0094]-[0100], [0115] and [0116]) and defining a connection (see at least Moore [0094]-[0100], [0115] and [0116]) wherein the connection is configured for receiving data and/or charging via the connection (see at least Moore [0094]-[0100], [0115] and [0116]).
Regarding claim 19, Moore as modified by Li discloses calculating the alignment point based on a docking point (see at least Moore [0011], [0017], [0121] and [0159]).
Regarding claim 20, Moore as modified by Li discloses arriving at a docking station (see at least Moore Figure 17, [0011], [0168] and [0173]).
Regarding claim 21, Moore as modified by Li discloses aligning a path relative to the docking station based on said reckoning (see at least Moore [0125]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 23, Moore fails to disclose wherein said third navigating comprises a cascade controller. However, Li teaches wherein said third navigating comprises a cascade controller (see at least [n0004] and [n0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore to incorporate the teachings of Li which teaches wherein said third navigating comprises a cascade controller since they are both directed to robot (unmanned/autonomous vehicle) navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Li would increase accuracy of navigation in the overall system (see at least Li [n0004]).
Regarding claim 25, Moore as modified by Li discloses aligning relative to a docking point (see at least Moore [0095] and [0125]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 26, Moore as modified by Li discloses wherein the fiducial is associated with a docking point (see at least Moore Figure 25, [0112], [0121], [0122], [0125]-[0129] and [0165]).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is commensurate in scope with claim 23. See above for rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claim 28, Moore as modified by Li discloses wherein said third navigating is based on a pose of the fiducial (see at least Moore Figure 25, [0112], [0121], [0122], [0125]-[0129] and [0165]).
Regarding claim 29, Moore as modified by Li discloses detecting a pose of the fiducial (see at least Moore [0074], [0112], [0125]] and [0126]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US20190155296A1) in view of Li (CN114253275A) in further view of Hau (US20230105828A1).
Regarding claim 13, Moore as modified by Li does not explicitly disclose fourth navigating to a common docking point; requesting the docking point; and receiving data respecting the docking point. However, Hau teaches prior to said calculating: fourth navigating to a common docking point (see at least [0080] and [0095]); requesting the docking point (see at least [0040], [0080] and [0095]); and receiving data respecting the docking point (see at least [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore as modified by Li to incorporate the teachings of Hau which teaches fourth navigating to a common docking point; requesting the docking point; and receiving data respecting the docking point since they are directed to docking a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Hau would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US20190155296A1) in view of Li (CN114253275A) in further view of Yu (US20230210050A1).
Regarding claim 16, Moore as modified by Li discloses wherein said reckoning comprises: generating a fiducial pose of the fiducial in the camera frame (see at least Moore [0112], [0125] and [0126]).
Moore as modified by Li fails to disclose wherein said reckoning comprises: generating a vehicle pose of the vehicle in a camera frame; generating a docking frame corresponding to the docking point; and generating a transformed pose of the vehicle based on the camera frame and the docking frame. However, Yu teaches said reckoning comprises: generating a vehicle pose of the vehicle in a camera frame (see at least [0007], [0030], [0037], [0040] and [0046]); generating a docking frame corresponding to the docking point (see at least [0007], [0030], [0044] and [0046]); and generating a transformed pose of the vehicle based on the camera frame and the docking frame (see at least [0007], [0048] and [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore as modified by Li to incorporate the teachings of Yu which teaches wherein said reckoning comprises: generating a vehicle pose of the vehicle in a camera frame; generating a docking frame corresponding to the docking point; and generating a transformed pose of the vehicle based on the camera frame and the docking frame since they are directed to docking a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yu would increase accuracy of the reckoning and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 24, Moore as modified by Li discloses adjusting a path of said third navigating to align with the docking station if said reckoning reveals a difference between the position and the docking point (see at least Moore [0125]-[0128]).
Moore as modified by Li fails to disclose wherein said adjusting is based on the transformed pose. However, Yu teaches wherein said adjusting is based on the transformed pose (see at least [0007], [0048], [0105] and [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore as modified by Li to incorporate the teachings of Yu which teaches wherein said adjusting is based on the transformed pose since they are directed to docking a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yu would increase accuracy of the reckoning and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US20190155296A1) in view of Li (CN114253275A) in further view of Yu (US20230210050A1) in yet further view of Cacioppo (US20240184295A1).
Regarding claim 17, Moore as modified by Li fails to disclose generating a confidence value associated with the transformed pose.
Yu teaches a confidence value associated with the transformed pose (see at least [0043] and [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore as modified by Li to incorporate the teachings of Yu which teaches a confidence value associated with the transformed pose since they are directed to docking a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yu would increase accuracy of the reckoning and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Cacioppo teaches generating the confidence value (see at least abstract and [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore as modified by Li and Yu to incorporate the teachings of Cacioppo which teaches generating the confidence value since they are directed to docking a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Cacioppo would increase the utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 22, Moore as modified by Li fails to disclose determining whether said third navigating is safe based on the confidence value. Yu teaches determining whether said third navigating is safe based on the confidence value (see at least [0043], [0047], [0049] and [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Moore as modified by Li to incorporate the teachings of Yu which teaches determining whether said third navigating is safe based on the confidence value since they are directed to docking a vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yu would increase accuracy of the reckoning and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights