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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 05/06/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 2 ,5-7, 11, and 14-15 have been previously withdrawn, claims 1-15, 17, and 19 have been amended, claim 16 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 17-21 are currently pending of which claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12-13, and 17-21 are examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 16-23, filed 05/06/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)/(b), the amendment renders this rejection moot, the amended claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)/(b).
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Fujii does not appear to disclose the entirety of the claims, as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Silver, previously applied, in view of Jean, newly cited, did disclose the entirety of the claimed invention, as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the distance along with the lane” should be “along the lane.”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “machine navigating with a lane” should be “within a lane,”
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informality: the phrase “a second distance traveled by the machine, since the determining the first speed limit, is less than…” to correct the punctuation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. (US 2020/0364473 A1), hereinafter Silver, in view of Jean et al. (US 2024/0253624 A1), hereinafter Jean.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Silver discloses a system comprising: one or more processors to: (see at least [0028] “The vehicle may… include one or more processors 120, memory 130”)
determining, based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors of a machine, a first speed limit associated with a speed limit sign corresponding to the lane; (see at least [0049] “the vehicle's computing devices 110 may detect and identify objects in a section of road 400 that includes a speed limit sign… the detected objects in the vehicle's environment may correspond with objects stored in the detailed map information”)
determining, based at least on the determining the first speed limit, an offset associated with a distance along the lane that applies to the first speed limit; (see at least [0062] “The vehicle's computing devices 110 may then determine an effect zone of the permanent with general effect, permanent with local effect, or temporary speed limit sign. The effect zone is a section of road where the speed limit of the speed limit sign applies.”)
determining, based at least on map data representative of a map corresponding to at least the distance along with the lane, a second speed limit associated with the offset; (see at least [0049] “the vehicle's computing devices 110 may detect and identify objects in a section of road 400 that includes a speed limit sign… the detected objects in the vehicle's environment may correspond with objects stored in the detailed map information”)
obtaining rules associated with determining a final speed limit, the rules being prioritized based at least on conditions for executing the rules; (see at least [0048] “When the detected object is identified as a speed limit sign, then the vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine whether the speed limit sign is permanent with general effect, permanent with local effect, or temporary based on the pre-stored detailed map information and other factors.” [0062] “The vehicle's computing devices 110 may then determine an effect zone of the permanent with general effect, permanent with local effect, or temporary speed limit sign.” Note: The permanence and effect of the speed limit sign is conditional to whether a temporary sign should be used over the sign with permanent effect, while the effect zone is determined using rules to select the start and end points.)
determining, based at least on a condition of the conditions existing, and by executing a rule of the rules that is associated with the condition, the final speed limit to associate with the offset segment using at least one of the first speed limit or the second speed limit; (see at least [0065] “a start point of the effect zone and an end point of the effect zone may be determined using a confidence level indicating whether the speed limit on the temporary speed limit sign applies to various points along the road.” [0073])
and causing, based at least on the final speed limit associated with the speed limit sign, the machine to perform one or more operations while navigating the distance along the road that is associated with the offset. (see at least [0012] “determining a response of the vehicle based on the determined effect zone of the identified speed limit sign and controlling the vehicle based on the determined response.”)
Silver discloses determining an effect zone where a speed limit applies by acquiring perception data and comparing it to map data to determine how to control the vehicle in response to the speed limit effect zone being in alignment with map data or only indicated through perception data. Silver further suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, assigning of the speed limit to that road section according to a priority based on a profile.
However, Jean teaches speed limit determination based on context priorities. (see at least [0098] “a speed policy stored in database 228 is accessed in order to derive in step 312 a practical speed limit to output to a context implementer 238.” [0024-0025] “In a feature, the contextual speed limit is derived by applying a context profile to the practical speed limit… in accordance with context priorities… for a road segment corresponding to the determined current location;”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit effect zone determination of Silver to include the contextual prioritization to determine a limit for the vehicle using a context profile, as disclosed in Jean, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a practical speed limit that uses the identified legal speed limit and the determined context using context profiles and context priorities, see Jean [0054, 0100].
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Silver discloses the determination of the final speed limit comprises: determining that the first speed limit is different than the second speed limit; (see at least [0059] “the vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine that speed limit sign 710 is a temporary speed limit sign because (i) the location of the speed limit sign 710 does not correspond to a location of a speed limit sign in the pre-stored detailed map information and (ii) the speed limit on the speed limit sign 710 does not correspond to a speed limit in the pre-stored detailed map information for a section of road including the detected location.”)
determining, based at least on the condition indicating that the first speed limit is different than the second speed limit, that the rule indicates to use one of the first speed limit or the second limit; (see at least [0065] “For a temporary speed limit sign, such as speed limit signs 710, 712 shown in FIG. 7, a start point of the effect zone and an end point of the effect zone may be determined using a confidence level indicating whether the speed limit on the temporary speed limit sign applies to various points along the road.”)
determining, based at least on executing the rule, to use one of the first speed limit or the second speed limit as the final speed limit associated with the speed limit sign. (see at least [0073] “When the effect zone of the detected speed limit sign is determined, the vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine how the vehicle 100 should respond. This determination may be based on the effect zone or the effect zone confidence level. The vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine when to adjust the vehicle's speed so as to be within the speed limit on the speed limit sign at or slightly after the start point of the speed limit sign's effect zone.”)
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Silver discloses determining an effect zone where a speed limit applies by acquiring perception data and comparing it to map data to determine how to control the vehicle in response to the speed limit effect zone being in alignment with map data or only indicated through perception data. Silver further suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, assigning of the speed limit to that road section according to a priority based on a profile.
However, Jean teaches the rules include at least: the rule that includes a first priority and is associated with the condition; (see at least [0115] “With further regard to context profiles and context priorities… a maximum allowed speed limit in contexts… in normal operation, the allowed speed limit could have a slight buffer, for instance, 5% over the speed limit … only a single profile preferably is applied at a time. For instance, if the road is slippery and the vehicle is in a roadwork zone, the profile can be either “roadwork” or “slippery”, based on a customer-defined priority list.”)
and a second rule that includes a second priority and is associated with a second condition of the conditions, the second priority being less than the first priority. (see at least [0127] “setting a “road work” zone speed context profile that can be applied in priority over other context profiles, such as a profile corresponding to a “rain” context;”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit effect zone determination of Silver to include the contextual prioritization to determine a limit for the vehicle using a context profile, as disclosed in Jean, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a practical speed limit that uses the identified legal speed limit and the determined context using context profiles and context priorities, see Jean [0054, 0100].
With respect to claims 9 and 21, Silver discloses determining an effect zone where a speed limit applies by acquiring perception data and comparing it to map data to determine how to control the vehicle in response to the speed limit effect zone being in alignment with map data or only indicated through perception data. Silver further suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, assigning of the speed limit to that road section according to a priority based on a profile.
However, Jean teaches determining that the condition associated with the rule exists; determining that a second condition of the conditions associated with a second rule of the rules also exists; and determining to use the rule rather than the second rule based at least on the second priority being less than the first priority. (see at least [0115] “With further regard to context profiles and context priorities… only a single profile preferably is applied at a time. For instance, if the road is slippery and the vehicle is in a roadwork zone, the profile can be either “roadwork” or “slippery”, based on a customer-defined priority list.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit effect zone determination of Silver to include the contextual prioritization to determine a limit for the vehicle using a context profile, as disclosed in Jean, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a practical speed limit that uses the identified legal speed limit and the determined context using context profiles and context priorities, see Jean [0054, 0100].
With respect to claim 19, Silver discloses one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to: (see at least [0028] “The vehicle may… include one or more processors 120, memory 130”)
determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors of a machine navigating with a lane, a first speed limit associated with a speed limit sign associated with the lane; (see at least [0049] “the vehicle's computing devices 110 may detect and identify objects in a section of road 400 that includes a speed limit sign… the detected objects in the vehicle's environment may correspond with objects stored in the detailed map information”)
generate, based at least on the first speed limit, an offset segment associated with a distance along the lane that applies to the first speed limit; (see at least [0062] “The vehicle's computing devices 110 may then determine an effect zone of the permanent with general effect, permanent with local effect, or temporary speed limit sign. The effect zone is a section of road where the speed limit of the speed limit sign applies.”)
determine, based at least on map data representative of at least the offset segment, a second speed limit associated with the offset segment; (see at least [0049] “the vehicle's computing devices 110 may detect and identify objects in a section of road 400 that includes a speed limit sign… the detected objects in the vehicle's environment may correspond with objects stored in the detailed map information”)
determine that one or more current driving conditions differ from one or more first driving conditions associated with executing a first rule for determining a final speed limit, (see at least [0061] “When the geographic area 750 is determined to be a temporary speed change location, the vehicle's computing devices 110… may determine that the location of the speed limit sign 712 is within a set distance from the temporary speed change location in the geographic area 750, and that the speed limit sign 712 is a temporary speed limit sign.”)
determine that the one or more current driving conditions match one or more second driving conditions associated with executing a second rule for determining the final speed limit, (see at least [0051] “The vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine that the speed limit sign 510 is a permanent speed limit sign with general effect when the location of the speed limit sign is proximate to a speed change location and a number on the speed limit sign matches the speed limit of the speed change location.”)
determine, based at least on the one or more current driving conditions matching the one or more second driving conditions, and by at least executing the second rule, that the final speed limit includes at least one of the first speed limit or the second speed limit; (see at least [0051] “The vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine that the speed limit sign 510 is a permanent speed limit sign with general effect… the speed limit sign 510 is located within a set distance from a section of road that is indicated to be a speed change location 560 in the pre-stored detailed map information 300. The set distance may be, for example, 50 feet, 100 feet, or another distance. The vehicle's computing devices 110 may determine that the number on the speed limit sign is 45 mph and determine that the number matches the speed limit of the speed change location 560 in the detailed map information.”)
and cause, based at least on the final speed limit, the machine to perform one or more operations. (see at least [0012] “determining a response of the vehicle based on the determined effect zone of the identified speed limit sign and controlling the vehicle based on the determined response.” [0073] “The vehicle's computing devices 110 may also determine when to adjust the vehicle's speed so as to resume a previous speed limit or be within a speed limit on a next speed limit sign at or slightly after the end point of the speed limit sign's effect zone.”)
Silver discloses determining an effect zone where a speed limit applies by acquiring perception data and comparing it to map data to determine how to control the vehicle in response to the speed limit effect zone being in alignment with map data or only indicated through perception data. Silver further suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, assigning of the speed limit to that road section according to a priority based on a profile.
However, Jean teaches the first rule being associated with a first priority; and the second rule being associated with a second priority; (see at least [0115] “With further regard to context profiles and context priorities… parameters can include whether cruise control can be activated or a maximum allowed speed limit in contexts… in normal operation, the allowed speed limit could have a slight buffer, for instance, 5% over the speed limit … only a single profile preferably is applied at a time. For instance, if the road is slippery and the vehicle is in a roadwork zone, the profile can be either “roadwork” or “slippery”, based on a customer-defined priority list.”)
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver in view of Jean as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (US 2022/0105938 A1), hereinafter Fujii.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Silver discloses determining an effect zone where a speed limit applies by acquiring perception data and comparing it to map data to determine how to control the vehicle in response to the speed limit effect zone being in alignment with map data or only indicated through perception data, but does not explicitly disclose a distance since the determination being used to determine a final speed limit.
However, Fujii teaches one of: the condition indicates that a second distance traveled by the machine since the determining the first speed limit is less than or equal to a threshold distance, and the rule is to use the first speed limit as the final speed limit; (see at least [0070] “the predetermined first condition C1 is, a condition that a traveling distance D of the host vehicle 100 (a first traveling distance D1) after the first traffic information IF1” [0087] “traveling distance D (the first traveling distance D1) of the host vehicle 100 after the sign speed limit of 40 km/h has been acquired at the point P30 does not reach the predetermined first distance D1_th” [0086-0087] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, when a road sign R130 indicating a speed limit of 40 km/h is detected by the forward information detecting device 41… (first traffic information IF1) and sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h… does not reach the predetermined first distance D1_th, data speed limit display of 60 km/h is not performed and the sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h continues to be performed.”)
or the condition indicates that the second distance is greater than the threshold distance, and the rule is to use the second speed limit as the final speed limit. (see at least [0086-0088] “the traveling distance D (the first traveling distance D1) of the host vehicle 100 after the sign speed limit of 40 km/h has been acquired at the point P30 reaches the predetermined first distance D1_th at a point P33… the speed limit display is switched from the sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h to a data speed limit display D233 of 60 km/h”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit effect zone determination of Silver to include the distance traveled as disclosed in Fujii, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide measurable distances at which to assess the speed limit confidence levels rather than relying purely on visual indications to determine when to resume the previous speed limit or prepare for the next speed limit, see Silver [0068, 0073].
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver in view of Jean as applied to claims 10 and 19 above, and further in view of Akella (US 2020/0406894 A1), hereinafter Akella.
With respect to claims 18 and 20, Silver discloses the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (see at least [0008] “The system includes a perception system configured to detect an object in a vehicle's environment” [0034] “In one example, the vehicle's computing devices 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100… to control the vehicle in fully autonomous… as well as semiautonomous… driving modes.”)
Silver discloses determining an effect zone where a speed limit applies by acquiring perception data and comparing it to map data to determine how to control the vehicle in response to the speed limit effect zone being in alignment with map data or only indicated through perception data, but does not explicitly disclose the use of simulations, neural networks, synthetic/virtual data, or data centers/cloud computing.
However, Akella teaches a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; (see at least [0064] “The surroundings analysis system 703 may further include storage for simulated data that has been generated by a computer simulation algorithm, for use in part in testing.”)
a system for performing generative Al operations; a system for performing operations using a large language model; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing conversational Al operations; (see at least [0025] “In at least some examples, such a machine-learned model 208 comprises an artificial or deep learned neural network”)
a system implemented using an edge device; (see at least [0101] “The systems and methods described herein may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a network.”)
a system implemented using a robot; (see at least [0084] “the computing device may be operatively coupled to any machine-based vision system… industrial or agricultural robots, household robots”)
a system for generating synthetic data; (see at least [0021] “The vehicle-control system synthesizes the sensory data into a set of driving-environment characteristics that correspond to the inputs of the machine-learned model.”)
a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; (see at least [0065] “The localization and mapping subsystem 714 may include functionality to convert or map data to… a three-dimensional space in an environment.”)
a system for performing digital twin operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); (see at least [0099] “The systems, subsystems, and methods described herein can be implemented using one or more virtual machines operating alone or in combination with one other.”)
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (see at least [0076] “the systems and methods described herein may not be limited to these platforms. Instead, the systems and methods described herein may be implemented on… proxy servers, network communication servers… web servers, data, media, audio, video, telephony or streaming technology servers, etc.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computing device of Silver to include the computing systems disclosed in Akella, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a variety of computer systems capable of carrying out the functionality of the speed limit determination, see Akella [0076, 0099, 0101].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
