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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 24-26, 28, 30, 33-35, and 39-40 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 and 37-38 have been cancelled.
Claims 41-42 have been newly added.
Claims 21-36 and 39-42 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, 28, 30-31, 39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dean et al. (US 2020/0019175), hereinafter referred to as Dean.
Regarding claim 21, Dean teaches:
A method comprising: determining risks of encountering obstacles on a plurality of available path segments ("The risk factors represent different types of undesirable events that may occur on the path segment... Other examples of risk factors include a bad experience risk, which includes hard stops, jerking motions, and other events that impact a passenger experience, and a harmful event risk, including a collision involving the vehicle." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0063) (The examiner notes that the bad experience risks including a collision involving the vehicle as taught by Dean corresponds to the claimed risks of encountering obstacles)
based on historical navigation data of the plurality of available path segments ("Such training can correspond to supervised or unsupervised machine learning methods to accurately quantify fractional risk for traversing any given path segment based on historical harmful event data and/or close call data from AV driving logs and other sensor systems (e.g., driver computing devices)." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0019);
assigning costs to the plurality of available path segments based on the determined risks ("Among other benefits, the examples described herein achieve a technical effect of safely expanding autonomous vehicle operations through dynamic risk analysis of driving log data and the creation of navigation maps annotated with risk factor cost data. These risk factor cost data provide for an autonomous vehicle navigation system that increases safety and reduces the likelihood of bad experiences while riding in the vehicle." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0020);
and determining a path from a starting point to an ending point based on the assigned costs ("In some aspects, the global route planner 272 combines path segments in the geographic region to generate a travel route from a first location (e.g., a pick-up location for a passenger) to a second location (e.g., a travel destination) based on the path segment values in the annotated maps. For example, the global route planner 272 can determine the travel route with the lowest total cost, or at least a travel route that avoids higher cost alternatives." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0050),
wherein the determined path is used by a drone for autonomous navigation ("The vehicle 200 incorporating the vehicle control system 220 can be a ground-based vehicle (e.g., car, truck, bus), an air-based vehicle (e.g., airplane, drone, helicopter, or other aircraft), or other type of vehicle (e.g., watercraft)... In other implementations, the vehicle 200 is an autonomous vehicle (AV) configured to drive, navigate, operate, etc. with minimal and/or no interaction from a human driver. For example, when the vehicle 200 is an autonomous vehicle, the vehicle 200 can be configured to operate in one or more modes such as, for example, a fully autonomous operational mode and/or a semi-autonomous operational mode." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 22, Dean teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean further teaches:
further comprising modifying at least one cost corresponding to at least one path segment of the available path segments based on data indicating a change in risk of encountering an obstacle on the at least one path segment ("In some aspects, the navigation route cost system periodically updates values for each of the path segments (650). For example, conditions such as traffic, weather, or lighting may change over the course of a single trip. These changing conditions can affect the autonomous performance of the SDAVs and FAVs such that current risks and travel times for the remainder of the trip or for certain path segments may increase or decrease. As a result of these changes, the route planning system can update the travel route in order to select a set of lower cost path segments to reach the destination (660)." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 28, Dean teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean further teaches:
further comprising: navigating the drone along the path to a destination ("The local route planner 274 can provide the selected motion plan to a vehicle controller 280 that controls one or more vehicle controls 290 (e.g., actuators or other devices that control throttle, steering, braking, etc.) to execute the selected motion plan." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0053);
identifying an obstacle along the path ("In some implementations, the perception system can determine state data for each object over a number of iterations. In particular, the perception system can update the state data for each object at each iteration. Thus, the perception system can detect and track objects that may impact risk factors or travel time along a given path segment (720)." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0079);
accessing a path planning graph ("In addition to using the sensor data, the perception system 230 can retrieve map data (e.g., localization maps) that provide detailed information about the surrounding environment of the vehicle. The map data can provide information regarding the identity and location of different paths (e.g., roads, road segments, lanes, lane segments, parking lanes, turning lanes, bicycle lanes, or other portions of a particular path). In some examples, path segments within the map data can include one or more descriptors including, for example, a path segment identifier, a start point for the path segment, an end point for the path segment, a directionality (e.g., direction of traffic flow), and/or connectivity identifiers for other path segments that are predecessors and/or successors to a given path segment." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0041) (The examiner notes that the map data including information regarding different path segment as taught by Dean corresponds to the claimed path planning graph);
generating a modified path planning graph based on the identified obstacle and the accessed path planning graph ("Sensor data from the object detection sensors 214 can include information that describes the location (e.g., in three-dimensional space relative to the vehicle 200) of points that correspond to objects within the surrounding environment of the vehicle 200 (e.g., at one or more times). In some implementations, the sensors 210 can be used to facilitate navigation of vehicle 200 when the vehicle 200 is operating in an autonomous mode. In addition, the sensors 210 gather and log data as the vehicle 200 traverses routes within a given geographic region." – see at least Dean: paragraphs 0038-0039);
and determining an alternate path to the destination based on the modified path planning graph ("For example, if the local route planner 274 determines that the vehicle 200 should deviate from the travel route (e.g., to avoid an object in the road or pass a slow driver), the local route planner 274 can select an alternate path segment based on which alternate path segment has lower travel time or risk factor costs." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 30, this claim is substantially similar to claim 21 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 21 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 31, this claim is substantially similar to claim 22 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 22 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 39, this claim is substantially similar to claim 21 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 21 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 41, Dean teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean further teaches:
further comprising receiving the historical navigation data of the plurality of available path segments from a plurality of drones ("The communication interface 380 of the server computing devices 350 can also receive driving log data streamed or periodically transmitted from the vehicles 300. The driving log data can include live telemetry and diagnostics data, live sensor data streams, and data indicating the AV's planned trajectory and overall route. The server computing device 350 can execute cost calculation instructions 372 to compile and analyze the driving log data to identify events and features relevant to one or more cost layers." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 42, Dean teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean further teaches:
wherein the historical navigation data indicates: numbers of times obstacles were encountered on path segments ("The event parser 120 retrieves the log data from data store 140 and parses the logs in order to identify features and events that the fleet of vehicles encountered in the geographic region. In some aspects, the event parser 120 identifies trip anomalies, such as harmful events and close calls, that are relevant to one or more risk factor cost layers for path segments in the geographic region. Harmful events can correspond to physical contact between an AV and other objects, such as another vehicle, a curb, a road sign, a pedestrian, and the like. A close call can correspond to any scenario in which a certain risk threshold has been exceeded." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0031);
and numbers of times path segments were navigated ("Additionally or alternatively, the path segments can be determined through ground truth mapping and labelling or heuristically through computational analysis of AV driving log data from AVs traveling throughout the region. The driving log data from AVs can be parsed and processed by trained risk regressors to determine a fractional risk quantity for an AV operating on any given path segment for a variety of different cost layers." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0012) (The examiner notes that the driving log data as taught by Dean is taught to include data for each time one of the network-connected vehicles travels along a given path segment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23-24, 32-33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Whittaker et al. (US 2008/0059015), hereinafter referred to as Whittaker. Whittaker is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of path planning.
Regarding claim 23, Dean teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean further teaches:
wherein modifying the at least one cost corresponding to the at least one path segment comprises: decreasing the cost of a first path segment based on historical data indicating a low risk of encountering an obstacle on the first path segment,… or increasing the cost of a second path segment of the available path segments based on historical data indicating a high risk of encountering an obstacle on the first path segment ("As one example, the local route planner 274 can determine a cost function for each of one or more candidate motion plans for the vehicle 200 based at least in part on the current locations and/or predicted future locations of any detected objects. For example, the cost function can describe a cost (e.g., over time) of adhering to a particular candidate motion plan. For example, the cost described by a cost function can increase when the vehicle expects to impact another object and/or deviate from the travel route." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0052),
Dean does not explicitly disclose, but Whittaker teaches:
wherein a decreased cost corresponds to an increased path speed for the first path segment ("The speed ranges for each risk level are assigned to help maintain this assumption. Given these two assumptions, the algorithm to increase speed iteratively adjusts a speed scale factor which is applied to the speed for every point in the path. The speed at each waypoint is limited to the lower of the maximum permissible speed or the upper speed bound for the assigned risk level at the point." – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dean with these above aforementioned teachings from Whittaker such that a decreased cost corresponds to an increased path speed for the first path segment. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Whittaker’s speed-setting process for an autonomous vehicle with Dean’s system for autonomous vehicle routing in order to automatically adjust the speed of a vehicle along a path based on an assessed risk (“During pre-planning, a speed setting process specifies the target speeds for an autonomous vehicle given a target elapsed time to complete a pre-planned path. Speed setting is performed by assessing the risk for a given robot to traverse a section of terrain based on available information. An automated process then preferably uses a speed policy generated by combining the risk assessment with any speed limits imposed on the course to assign planned speeds to each waypoint in the path.” – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0028). Doing so would provide the benefit of maximizing a vehicle speed along a route with consideration of the determined risks along the route (“The speed at each waypoint is limited to the lower of the maximum permissible speed or the upper speed bound for the assigned risk level at the point. The iteration process is either terminated by achieving the desired elapsed time or by maximizing the possible speed at all points along the route.” – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0032).
The examiner notes that while Whittaker is primarily directed towards ground vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the same benefits as taught by Whittaker regarding autonomous vehicle navigation would apply regardless of the particular type of vehicle, because it is a common and well-known practice to reduce vehicle speed while the vehicle is traveling in areas with a high risk of collision (“The speed planner 730 operates on the output of the conformal planner 726 and preemptively slows the robot for any sharp turns that may result when the conformal planner 726 generates a plan to avoid obstacles. Additionally, the speed planner 730 may take into account information from the route that is beyond the sensor field of view, such as speed limits and upcoming turns, to ensure that speeds are safe entering turns and dangerous areas.” – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 24, Dean in view of Whittaker teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean further teaches:
estimating a travel time for each of the plurality of available path segments based on the determined path speeds ("As described herein, travel times and risk factors associated with operating an AV along a given path segment can be determined and refined computationally through risk regression and machine learning techniques." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0011),
wherein the assigned costs correspond to the estimated travel times of the plurality of available path segments ("In addition to the risk factor cost layers, the event parser 120 can extract features such as road distances, speed limits, traffic signals, school zones, etc. from the localization maps or other mapping data in the data store 140 in order to calculate a score for a travel time cost layer." – see at least Dean: paragraph 0032).
Dean does not explicitly disclose, but Whittaker teaches:
wherein assigning the costs to the plurality of available path segments comprises: determining a path speed for each of the plurality of available path segments based on the determined risk of encountering an obstacle along the available path segment ("The speed ranges for each risk level are assigned to help maintain this assumption. Given these two assumptions, the algorithm to increase speed iteratively adjusts a speed scale factor which is applied to the speed for every point in the path. The speed at each waypoint is limited to the lower of the maximum permissible speed or the upper speed bound for the assigned risk level at the point. The iteration process is either terminated by achieving the desired elapsed time or by maximizing the possible speed at all points along the route." – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0032);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dean with these above aforementioned teachings from Whittaker such that assigning the costs to the plurality of available path segments comprises: determining a path speed for each of the plurality of available path segments based on the determined risk of encountering an obstacle along the available path segment. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Whittaker’s speed-setting process for an autonomous vehicle with Dean’s system for autonomous vehicle routing in order to automatically adjust the speed of a vehicle along a path based on an assessed risk (“During pre-planning, a speed setting process specifies the target speeds for an autonomous vehicle given a target elapsed time to complete a pre-planned path. Speed setting is performed by assessing the risk for a given robot to traverse a section of terrain based on available information. An automated process then preferably uses a speed policy generated by combining the risk assessment with any speed limits imposed on the course to assign planned speeds to each waypoint in the path.” – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0028). Doing so would provide the benefit of maximizing a vehicle speed along a route with consideration of the determined risks along the route (“The speed at each waypoint is limited to the lower of the maximum permissible speed or the upper speed bound for the assigned risk level at the point. The iteration process is either terminated by achieving the desired elapsed time or by maximizing the possible speed at all points along the route.” – see at least Whittaker: paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 32, this claim is substantially similar to claim 23 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 23 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 33, this claim is substantially similar to claim 24 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 24 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 40, this claim is substantially similar to claim 23 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 23 as has been set forth above.
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Whittaker, further in view of Gariepy et al. (US 2017/0197643), hereinafter referred to as Gariepy. Gariepy is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of path planning.
Regarding claim 25, Dean in view of Whittaker teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean does not explicitly disclose, but Gariepy teaches:
wherein: the determined path speeds comprise a low path speed and a high path speed ("Speed of travel can be set in a variety of ways. For example, vehicle 104 may simply select the maximum speed of which vehicle 104 is capable. In other examples, vehicle 104 can apply restrictions (such as speed limits) stored in memory 254 to the speed selected. In further examples, vehicle 104 can vary the speed based on operational parameters that are required to conform with the path. For example, when the path requires vehicle 104 to make a turn, vehicle 104 may be configured to select a lower speed for the duration of the turn." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0042);
the low path speed corresponds to a speed at which the drone is expected to be able to stop in time when a sensor of the drone detects an obstacle ("Specifically, at block 450, processor 250 is configured to set a speed that reduces the size of second sensor region 520 sufficiently for the obstacle detected at block 430 (obstacle 600, in the present example) to no longer fall within second sensor region 520." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0063) (The examiner notes that the size of a second sensor region corresponds to a sensing range which ensures that the vehicle can safely stop before colliding with an obstacle ("For example, the second sensor region can be set as a predetermined multiple of the stopping distance of vehicle 104 (e.g. twice the stopping distance), or as the stopping distance supplemented with a distance that vehicle 104 will travel in a predetermined amount of time at its current speed." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0049). Further, Gariepy teaches the embodiment in which the vehicle is an aerial vehicle (e.g., a drone));
and the high path speed corresponds to a speed that exceeds an expected stopping ability of the drone when the sensor of the drone detects an obstacle ("when the new path is available (or the obstacle detected at block 430 moves away), path execution at block 410 can resume, generally leading to an increase in vehicle speed." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dean with these above aforementioned teachings from Gariepy such that the determined path speeds comprise a low path speed and a high path speed; the low path speed corresponds to a speed at which the drone is expected to be able to stop in time when a sensor of the drone detects an obstacle, and the high path speed corresponds to a speed that exceeds an expected stopping ability of the drone when the sensor of the drone detects an obstacle. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gariepy’s method of adjusting a vehicle speed with Dean’s system for autonomous vehicle routing in order to adjust vehicle operation based on a risk of encountering an obstacle (“The presence of obstacle 600 in second sensor region 520 indicates that there is a risk that obstacle 600 could enter first sensor region 516 and trigger an emergency stop in vehicle 104. Returning to FIG. 4, at block 435 vehicle 104 is configured to take various actions to reduce or eliminate that risk. These actions, in general, correspond to the second fail-safe routine mentioned earlier.” – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0058). Doing so would provide the benefit of reducing the risk of colliding with an obstacle or needing to interrupt operation of the vehicle (“In order to reduce interruptions to the operation of vehicle 104 (that is, in completing the task of travelling to target location 512), while also reducing or eliminating the risk of colliding with obstacle 600 (which, as is evident from FIG. 6, would occur if vehicle 104 continued along path 500), vehicle 104 is therefore configured to perform additional actions as part of the second fail-safe routine.” – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 34, this claim is substantially similar to claim 25 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 25 as has been set forth above.
Claims 26, 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Gariepy.
Regarding claim 26, Dean in view of Gariepy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean does not explicitly disclose, but Gariepy teaches:
further comprising: determining a low path speed for a first available path segment of the plurality of available path segments, wherein the low path speed corresponds to a speed at which the drone is expected to be able to stop in time when a sensor of the drone detects an obstacle ("Specifically, at block 450, processor 250 is configured to set a speed that reduces the size of second sensor region 520 sufficiently for the obstacle detected at block 430 (obstacle 600, in the present example) to no longer fall within second sensor region 520." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0063);
and in response to the drone traveling the first available path segment without encountering an obstacle, changing the low path speed for the first available path segment to a high path speed that exceeds an expected stopping ability of the drone when the sensor of the drone detects an obstacle ("when the new path is available (or the obstacle detected at block 430 moves away), path execution at block 410 can resume, generally leading to an increase in vehicle speed." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dean with these above aforementioned teachings from Gariepy to include determining a low path speed for a first available path segment of the plurality of available path segments, wherein the low path speed corresponds to a speed at which a drone is expected to be able to stop in time when a sensor of the drone detects an obstacle, and in response to the drone traveling the first available path segment without encountering an obstacle, changing the path speed for the first available path segment to a high path speed that exceeds an expected stopping ability of the drone when the sensor of the drone detects an obstacle. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gariepy’s method of adjusting a vehicle speed with Dean’s system for autonomous vehicle routing in order to adjust vehicle operation based on a risk of encountering an obstacle (“The presence of obstacle 600 in second sensor region 520 indicates that there is a risk that obstacle 600 could enter first sensor region 516 and trigger an emergency stop in vehicle 104. Returning to FIG. 4, at block 435 vehicle 104 is configured to take various actions to reduce or eliminate that risk. These actions, in general, correspond to the second fail-safe routine mentioned earlier.” – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0058). Doing so would provide the benefit of reducing the risk of colliding with an obstacle or needing to interrupt operation of the vehicle (“In order to reduce interruptions to the operation of vehicle 104 (that is, in completing the task of travelling to target location 512), while also reducing or eliminating the risk of colliding with obstacle 600 (which, as is evident from FIG. 6, would occur if vehicle 104 continued along path 500), vehicle 104 is therefore configured to perform additional actions as part of the second fail-safe routine.” – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 29, Dean in view of Gariepy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean does not explicitly disclose, but Gariepy teaches:
further comprising: determining whether the identified obstacle expired, wherein determining whether the identified obstacle expired comprises one of (1) setting a timer and determining whether the timer expired or (2) receiving a report from another drone indicating that it did not encounter the obstacle ("Reducing vehicle speed to zero presents an interruption in the operation of vehicle 104, but because the first fail-safe routine (i.e. emergency stop) has not occurred, resuming operation is still relatively straightforward, in that when the new path is available (or the obstacle detected at block 430 moves away), path execution at block 410 can resume, generally leading to an increase in vehicle speed." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0066);
and in response to determining that the identified obstacle expired, restoring the path planning graph ("In addition, it is possible for some obstacles, such as other vehicles, human operators and the like, to move, thus rendering their indicated positions in the map (if they were represented in the map) inaccurate. As will be discussed in greater detail below, vehicle 104 is configured to perform various actions to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of collisions with objects not accounted for in the path, while also reducing or eliminating interruptions in the completion of vehicle 104's tasks." – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dean with these above aforementioned teachings from Gariepy to include determining whether the identified obstacle expired, wherein determining whether the identified obstacle expired comprises one of (1) setting a timer and determining whether the timer expired or (2) receiving a report from another drone indicating that it did not encounter the obstacle, and in response to determining that the identified obstacle expired, restoring the path planning graph. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Gariepy’s method of updating an obstacle map with Dean’s system for autonomous vehicle routing in order to obtain up-to-date information on obstacle locations (“Vehicle 104 also includes at least one machine vision sensor 216 for detecting objects in the surroundings of vehicle 104. For example, vehicle 104 can include any suitable one of, or any suitable combination of, laser-based sensing devices (e.g. a LIDAR sensor), cameras and the like.” – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0027). Doing so would provide the benefit of accounting for movement of obstacles within an environment (“Such predictions can also take into account the movement of obstacles, therefore generating a prediction not only of the future position of vehicle 104, but also a future position of an obstacle based on the current observed (e.g. via sensor 216) motion of the obstacle.” – see at least Gariepy: paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 35, this claim is substantially similar to claim 26 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 26 as has been set forth above.
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Dubner (US 2022/0180738), hereinafter referred to as Dubner. Dubner is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of path planning.
Regarding claim 27, Dean teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Dean does not explicitly disclose, but Dubner teaches:
wherein the available path segments are available path segments in a warehouse ("Vehicle pathway 104 may be a road, highway, a warehouse aisle, factory floor, or a pathway not connected to the earth's surface." – see at least Dubner: paragraph 0019),
the method further comprising: resetting one or more of the assigned costs at least once a day ("A temporary change to pathway infrastructure may include a variety of lengths of time, including a short period, such as hours, or a longer period, such as a year." – see at least Dubner: paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dean with these above aforementioned teachings from Dubner such that the available path segments are available path segments in a warehouse, and further comprising: resetting one or more of the assigned costs at least once a day. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Dubner’s method of assessing risk during vehicle travel with Dean’s system for autonomous vehicle routing in order to guide vehicle movement in an environment where pathway infrastructure may change over time, such as in a warehouse (“Vehicle pathway 104 may include a temporary zone, such as TTC zone 102, on vehicle pathway 104. TTC zone 102 may represent a section of vehicle pathway 104 that includes temporary changes to pathway infrastructure, such as through the use of traffic control devices.” – see at least Dubner: paragraph 0020). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing a vehicle to adapt to temporary changes in an environment (“For example, TTC zone 102 may have navigational characteristics such as a traffic pattern change, worker presence, lane modifications, road surface quality, construction standards changes, or other conditions that are not normally present on or near vehicle pathway 104. Due to these temporary changes to pathway infrastructure in pathway 104, TTC zone 102 may have a different risk of an adverse event occurring in TTC zone 102 compared to ordinary conditions of pathway 104.” – see at least Dubner: paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 36, this claim is substantially similar to claim 27 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 27 as has been set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 February 2026 with respect to claims 21-36 and 39-42 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on the teachings of the newly relied upon reference by Dean, which has been introduced to address the amended claims.
In particular, the amended claims add limitations which recite that risks of encountering obstacles on a plurality of available path segments are determined based on historical navigation data of the plurality of available path segments, and that the determined path is used by a drone for autonomous navigation. The examiner acknowledges that while Whittaker teaches relevant aspects of the claimed invention, as set forth in further detail in the Non-Final Rejection filed 27 August 2025, Whittaker does not explicitly teach each of the limitations of the amended independent claims.
To address the Applicant’s Response, the examiner has introduced the reference by Dean which explicitly teaches collecting historical data (i.e., driving logs) for vehicles traveling along path segments (see at least Dean: paragraph 0012), wherein the historical data is used to determine risks associated with a given path segment (see at least Dean: paragraph 0019) and to plan a path based on the determined risks (see at least Dean: paragraph 0050), and wherein the path planning system may be applied by a variety of autonomous vehicle including drones (see at least Dean: paragraph 0036). As such, Dean is considered to fully teach the amended independent claims.
The examiner notes that since Dean is considered to more closely teach the amended claims than the previously applied reference by Whittaker, Dean is currently being applied as the primary reference instead of Whittaker. The rejection of the dependent claims have therefore been modified accordingly, as set forth in further detail above in the sections for claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
As per newly added claims 41 and 42, Dean is further considered to teach the corresponding new limitations of claims 41 and 42 as set forth in further detail above in the section for claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102. In particular, as per claim 41, Dean teaches receiving driving log data from a plurality of vehicles (see at least Dean: paragraph 0059), wherein the driving log data corresponds to the claimed historical data, and wherein Dean explicitly teaches that the vehicles may be drones (see at least Dean: paragraph 0036). Further, as per claim 42, Dean teaches collecting data regarding each time one of the plurality of vehicles traverses a given path segment (see at least Dean: paragraphs 0012 and 0019), and parsing the log data to identify each of a number of times in which an event was encountered, including events in which the vehicle collided with or had a close call with an obstacle (see at least Dean: paragraph 0031). This data is utilized to compute a fractional risk quantity which indicates a probability of a harmful event occurring along a given path segment (see at least Dean: paragraphs 0017-0018).
As per the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant’s Response has provided sufficient evidence that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than an abstract idea which could be reasonably performed in the human mind. The amended claims require that the determined path is used by a drone for autonomous navigation. Further, in view of the specification of the instant application, the claims are considered to provide an improvement to the technological field of path planning and autonomous vehicle navigation (see at least paragraph 0002 of the specification of the instant application). As such, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
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 DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights