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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 5 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/28/2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Salour et al. (US 20190187699 A1), and in view of Dold (US 20180259975 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salour teaches a system comprising:
a first sensor configured to detect objects disposed in a first detection area ([0047];
a second sensor configured to detect another vehicle disposed in a second detection area ([0051]; [0039], detect identifier indicative of a vehicle);
and a processor ([0048]) configured to:
control an autonomous driving operation of the autonomous vehicle ([0048] and [0058]) by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and the another vehicle detected by the second sensor;
and control an entry of the autonomous vehicle through the autonomous driving operation into any one zone of the plurality of zones in response to a driving signal that is received from a control server ([0065], control the vehicle through a zone, i.e. the path of the vehicle, including the primary path and an alternate path if the vehicle is rerouted).
Salour teaches using a first sensor to detect objects in the path of a vehicle ([0047]) and a second sensor that can detect other objects, including by identifying other vehicles, that are also in the path of a vehicle ([0039]). However, Salour does not teach controlling the autonomous vehicle by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and the another vehicle detected by the second sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, reference Dold teaches a system comprising a first and second sensor for controlling the operation of autonomous vehicles. This system is programmed to control the vehicles by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and the another vehicle detected by the second sensor ([0045-0047], first sensor 36 detects objects, and second sensors 38A and 38B detect if the object is a vehicle. If it is not, then the vehicles are controlled to stop).
Dold is analogous to the art of collision avoidance systems for autonomous vehicles. It would have been obvious to modify the operations of the processor by distinguishing between the detection readings of the two sensors based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of allowing vehicles to be controlled differently depending on what type of object is determined to be near the vehicle. As Dold teaches, this efficiently ensures safety for any persons near the vehicle without requiring long range sensors that can otherwise have their detection range obstructed ([0003-0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Salour further teaches that the autonomous vehicle and the another vehicle each comprise an indication part ([0079]), and wherein the second sensor is configured to detect the another vehicle by detecting the indication part of the another vehicle ([0079], system detects and identifies all vehicles).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Salour further teaches that the processor is further configured to stop the driving of the autonomous vehicle when a detection signal is received from either one of the first sensor and the second sensor ([0075], obstacle is detected in close proximity, so the vehicle stops). …
Salour additionally teaches that the system is configured to detect if the obstacle is still there for after a threshold amount of time after the vehicle has slowed and/or came to a stop ([0075-0076]). However, Salour does not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to restart the driving of the autonomous vehicle again when a detection signal is not received from the first sensor and the second sensor.
Reference Dold teaches that the system is configured to restart the driving of the autonomous vehicle again when a detection signal is not received from the first sensor and the second sensor ([0049], restart vehicle when non-vehicle obstacle has left detection range). As such, it would have been obvious to have the vehicle of Salour restart its driving operation after the obstacle detection signal is not received from the first and second sensor based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of having the vehicle resume its previously scheduled operations when it can safely do so.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5, and Salour further teaches that the processor is further configured to request the driving signal for driving permission from the control server when the detection signal is received for a predetermined time or more in a state in which the driving has been stopped by the detection signal ([0059], alternate path determined when object has been in path over specified threshold as vehicle slows and stops subsequent the determination that an object is in its path; [0056] and [0061], path control server makes the determination of time, and requests the vehicle monitoring system to reroute the vehicle with a new permissible path, which is communicated to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not explicitly teach that the processor changes the first detection area of the first sensor in response to a driving direction of the autonomous vehicle if the driving direction of the autonomous vehicle is changed, and that the first sensor is further configured to detect objects disposed in the changed first detection area.
However, reference Salour does teach that the first sensor can be rotated about the pan axes and is configured to scan for obstacles in the path of the vehicle ([0047]). The path of the vehicle incorporates many directional changes as shown in Fig. 2, and can be updated with an alternative path ([0059] and [0070]). As such, it is implicit that the processor changes the first detection area of the first sensor in response to a driving direction of the autonomous vehicle if the driving direction of the autonomous vehicle is changed, and that the first sensor is further configured to detect objects disposed in the changed first detection area, with the detection area corresponding to the detectable path in the new direction of travel of the vehicle. If this were not the case, the first sensor of the vehicle would be unable to detect obstacles in the path ahead of the vehicle whenever it turns as Salour states the sensor is configured to do.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to change the first detection area and detect objects in the new detection area when the vehicle is changing its paths based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of allowing the first sensor to adapt its detection for a new path of the vehicle, ensuring that it can optimally detect objects ahead of the vehicle and safely operate around any oncoming obstacles.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Salour further teaches, wherein, in a case in which a driving zone of the autonomous vehicle is changed or in a case in which the autonomous vehicle enters a designated zone, the processor is further configured to:
request the driving signal from the control server before the autonomous vehicle enters the changed zone or the designated zone ([0056] and [0067], path control server determines that the vehicle should be rerouted, and requests the vehicle management system to reroute; [0069], “the vehicle management system is configured to control the AGV system” based on requested rerouting; [0073]; request for rerouting determined before the vehicle enters the changed zone, i.e. its new path);
and control the autonomous vehicle to drive without stopping when receiving the driving signal ([0056] and [0061], driving signals indicative of a rerouted path sent to control the vehicle).
Salour does not explicitly teach that the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive without stopping when receiving the driving signal. However, Salour describes that the alternative path sent to the vehicle is a safe path ([0065], “alternative safe path”). This is indicative of a path in which there are no objects that otherwise interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle ([0043]). Because the vehicle of Salour is programmed to stop only when there is an obstacle within a threshold distance of its planned path ([0075], separation distance less than threshold), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure that the vehicle proceeds on its new path without stopping as there is no obstacles on the new path that would compromise safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to control the vehicle of the prior combination to prevent it from stopping when it receives a new path based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of clearing congestion from the vehicle pathways. As the new path is a safe path for the vehicle, there are no safety concerns or obstructing obstacles, therefore preventing the vehicle from stopping allows the vehicle to return to its operation sooner.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8, and Salour further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive driving signals from the control server, wherein the driving signals are sequentially transmitted according to a driving sequence set by the control server ([0056]; [0070], signals are sent sequentially as system continuously determines if an object is obstructing the path). …
Salour teaches that the control server sends signals to alter the path of the vehicle for a changed path ([0056]), and it teaches stopping the autonomous driving operation in response to a detection signal from at least one of the first sensor and the second sensor ([0075], obstacle is detected in close proximity, so the vehicle stops). However, Salour does not teach that the processor is further configured to apply a control signal, based on the driving signals, to restart the autonomous driving operation after the stopping..
Reference Dold does teach a processor that is configured to apply a control signal, based on the driving signals, to restart the autonomous driving operation ([0049]). This restarting occurs after the vehicles have been stopped due to a detection ([0047], where the vehicles are stopped when a person is detected in the range).
It would have been obvious to modify the processor by having it apply a control signal to explicitly restart the driving operation based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of enabling the vehicles to travel along their newly determined path so they may perform their programmed operations once the rerouting operation is safely completed.
Regarding claim 10, Salour teaches a method of controlling a system for avoiding a collision of an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
searching, by a first sensor, for objects disposed in a first detection area ([0047]);
searching, by a second sensor, for common vehicles disposed in a second detection area ([0039], [0051]);
controlling, by a processor, an autonomous driving operation of the autonomous vehicle ([0048] and [0058]) by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and a common vehicle detected by the second sensor;
and controlling, by the processor, an entry of the autonomous vehicle into any one zone of a plurality of zones set within a driving space in response to a driving signal that is received from a control server when the autonomous vehicle enters the any one zone ([0065], [0069], and [0073], when the vehicle enters a zone being within a certain distance away from an object, it receives a signal from the vehicle management system controlling its entry into the zone, either by slowing down or stopping short of the object).
Salour teaches using a first sensor to detect objects in the path of a vehicle ([0047]) and a second sensor that can detect other objects, including by identifying other vehicles, that are also in the path of a vehicle ([0039]). However, Salour does not teach controlling the autonomous vehicle by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and a common vehicle detected by the second sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, reference Dold teaches a system comprising a first and second sensor for controlling the operation of autonomous vehicles. This system is programmed to control the vehicles by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and a common vehicle detected by the second sensor ([0045-0047], first sensor 36 detects objects, and second sensors 38A and 38B detect if the object is a vehicle. If it is not, then the vehicles are controlled to stop).
Dold is analogous to the art of collision avoidance systems for autonomous vehicles. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Salour by distinguishing between the detection readings of the two sensors based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of allowing vehicles to be controlled differently depending on what type of object is determined to be near the vehicle. As Dold teaches, this efficiently ensures safety for any persons near the vehicle without requiring long range sensors that can otherwise have their detection range obstructed ([0003-0008]).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10, and Salour further teaches that the controlling of the autonomous driving operation comprises:
applying a control signal to stop the autonomous vehicle when receiving a detection signal from one of the first sensor and the second sensor while the autonomous vehicle is in motion. …
Salour additionally teaches that the system is configured to detect if the obstacle is still there for after a threshold amount of time after the vehicle has slowed and/or came to a stop ([0075-0076]). However, Salour does not explicitly teach that the controlling of the driving operation further comprises applying a control signal to restart the autonomous driving operation of the autonomous vehicle responsive to no longer receiving the detection signal from both of the first sensor and the second sensor.
Reference Dold teaches that the controlling of the driving operation further comprises applying a control signal to restart the autonomous driving operation of the autonomous vehicle responsive to no longer receiving the detection signal from both of the first sensor and the second sensor. ([0049], restart vehicle when non-vehicle obstacle has left detection range). As such, it would have been obvious to have the vehicle restart its driving operation after the obstacle detection signal is not received from the first and second sensor based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of having the vehicle resume its previously scheduled operations when it can safely do so.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11, and Salour further teaches that the controlling of the autonomous driving operation further comprises:
requesting a driving signal for driving permission from the control server when receiving the detection signal for a period of time greater than or equal to a predetermined time in a stopped state in which the driving of the autonomous vehicle is stopped by the control signal ([0059], alternate path determined when object has been in path over specified threshold as vehicle slows and stops subsequent the determination that an object is in its path; [0056] and [0061], path control server makes the determination of time, and requests vehicle monitoring system to reroute the vehicle with a new permissible path, which is communicated to the vehicle).
Salour teaches that the control server sends signals to alter the path of the vehicle for a changed path ([0056]). However, Salour does not teach that the method includes controlling the autonomous vehicle to restart the autonomous driving operation responsive to receiving the driving signal. Reference Dold does teach a method that includes controlling the autonomous vehicle to restart the autonomous driving operation responsive to receiving the driving signal.
It would have been obvious to modify the method to explicitly include restarting the driving operation of the vehicle based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of enabling the vehicles to travel along their newly determined path so they may perform their programmed operations once the rerouting operation is safely completed.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. The prior combination does not explicitly teach that the method further comprises changing the first detection area of the first sensor in response to a change in a driving direction of the autonomous vehicle during the autonomous driving operation; and searching for second objects disposed in the changed first detection area.
However, reference Salour does teach that the first sensor can be rotated about the pan axes and is configured to scan for obstacles in the path of the vehicle ([0047]). The path of the vehicle incorporates many directional changes as shown in Fig. 2, and can be updated with an alternative path ([0059] and [0070]). As such, it is implicit that the method of the prior combination includes changing the first detection area of the first sensor in response to a change in a driving direction of the autonomous vehicle during the autonomous driving operation, and searching for second objects disposed in the changed first detection area, with the detection area corresponding to the detectable path in the new direction of travel of the vehicle. If this were not the case, the first sensor of the vehicle would be unable to detect obstacles in the path ahead of the vehicle whenever it turns as Salour states the sensor is configured to do.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to change the first detection area and detect objects in the new detection area when the vehicle is changing its paths based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of allowing the first sensor to adapt its detection for a new path of the vehicle, ensuring that it can optimally detect objects ahead of the vehicle and safely operate around any oncoming obstacles.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10, and Salour further teaches that controlling of the entry of the autonomous vehicle comprises:
transmitting, to the control server, a request for driving permission before the autonomous vehicle enters the any one of the plurality of zones ([0056] and [0067], path control server determines that the vehicle should be rerouted, and requests the vehicle management system to reroute; [0069], “the vehicle management system is configured to control the AGV system” based on requested rerouting; [0073]; request for rerouting is sent before the vehicle enters the changed zone, i.e. its new path);
instructing the autonomous vehicle to enter the any one zone without stopping responsive to receiving the driving permission. ([0056] and [0061], driving signals indicative of a rerouted permissible path sent to control the vehicle).
Salour does not explicitly teach that the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive without stopping when receiving the driving signal. However, Salour describes that the alternative path sent to the vehicle is a safe path ([0065], “alternative safe path”). This is indicative of a path in which there are no objects that otherwise interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle ([0043]). Because the vehicle of Salour is programmed to stop only when there is an obstacle within a threshold distance of its planned path ([0075], separation distance less than threshold), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure that the vehicle proceeds on its new path without stopping as there is no obstacles on the new path that would compromise safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious control the vehicle of the prior combination to prevent the vehicle from stopping when it receives a new path based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of clearing congestion from the vehicle pathways. As the new path is a safe path for the vehicle, there are no safety concerns or obstructing obstacles, therefore preventing the vehicle from stopping allows the vehicle to return to its operation and clear the pathway sooner.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10, and Salour further teaches that the controlling of the entry of the autonomous vehicle comprises:
stopping the driving of the autonomous vehicle before the autonomous vehicle enters the any one of the plurality of zones ([0077] and Fig. 9, rerouting a vehicle on a new path occurs after the vehicle stops before an obstacle);
transmitting, to the control server, a request for driving permission ([0056] and [0061], path control server transmits rerouting request to the vehicle management system, which determines a new permissible path for the vehicle);
and instructing the autonomous vehicle to enter the any one zone responsive to receiving the driving permission ([0078], commands that cause the vehicle to follow the path).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15, and Salour further teaches that the controlling of the entry of the autonomous vehicle further comprises:
requesting the driving permission from the control server in one of a first case in which a zone in which the autonomous vehicle drives, among the plurality of zones, is changed ([0075], vehicle is determined to need a reroute to a new zone, i.e. a changing of the zone in which it drives; [0056] and [0061], path control server requests vehicle monitoring system to initiate rerouting for the vehicle, which correspondingly sets the vehicle driving permission to be that of the new path, i.e. the changed zone),
and a second case in which the autonomous vehicle enters a designated zone, among the plurality of zones ([0075], vehicle enters a designated zone within a predetermined distance from an obstacle; [0056] and [0061], path control server requests vehicle monitoring system to initiate delay or emergency stop for the vehicle, which correspondingly sets the vehicle driving permission for this designated zone to be that of the delay or emergency stop).
Regarding claim 18, Salour teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a first sensor configured to detect one or more objects disposed in a first detection area ([0047]);
a second sensor configured to detect another vehicle disposed in a second detection area ([0051]; [0039], detect identifier indicative of a vehicle);
and a processor ([0048]) configured to:
control an autonomous driving operation of an autonomous vehicle comprising the apparatus ([0048] and [0058], commands the propulsion system) by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and a common vehicle detected by the second sensor;
and control an entry of the autonomous vehicle through an autonomous driving operation into a zone of a plurality of zones responsive to receiving a driving signal from a control server ([0061-0062], vehicle receives signals via communication with access points that it then processes and performs path and zone transversal accordingly).
Salour further teaches using a first sensor to detect objects in the path of a vehicle ([0047]) and a second sensor that can detect other objects, including by identifying other vehicles, that are also in the path of a vehicle ([0039]). However, Salour does not teach controlling the autonomous vehicle by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and a common vehicle detected by the second sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, reference Dold teaches a system comprising a first and second sensor for controlling the operation of autonomous vehicles. This system is programmed to control the vehicles by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and a common vehicle detected by the second sensor ([0045-0047], first sensor 36 detects objects, and second sensors 38A and 38B detect if the object is a vehicle. If it is not, then the vehicles are controlled to stop).
Dold is analogous to the art of collision avoidance systems for autonomous vehicles. It would have been obvious to modify the operations of the processor by distinguishing between the detection readings of the two sensors based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of allowing vehicles to be controlled differently depending on what type of object is determined to be near the vehicle. As Dold teaches, this efficiently ensures safety for any persons near the vehicle without requiring long range sensors that can otherwise have their detection range obstructed ([0003-0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 18. The prior combination does not explicitly teach that the first sensor is further configured to change a shape of the first detection area responsive to a change in the autonomous driving operation.
However, reference Salour does teach that the first sensor can be rotated about the pan axes and is configured to scan for obstacles in the path of the vehicle ([0047]). The path of the vehicle incorporates many directional changes as shown in Fig. 2, and can be updated with an alternative path ([0059] and [0070]). As such, it is implicit that the first sensor is further configured to change a shape of the first detection area responsive to a change in the autonomous driving operation, with the detection area corresponding to the detectable path in the new direction of travel of the vehicle. If this were not the case, the first sensor of the vehicle would be unable to detect obstacles in the path ahead of the vehicle whenever it turns as Salour states the sensor is configured to do.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to change the first detection area and detect objects in the new detection area when the vehicle is changing its paths based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of allowing the first sensor to adapt its detection for a new path of the vehicle, ensuring that it can optimally detect objects ahead of the vehicle and safely operate around any oncoming obstacles.
Claims 3-4, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Salour in view of Dold as applied to claims 2, 10, and 18 above, and in further view of Dowdall et al. (US 9080866 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Salour teaches that the vehicles contain indication parts so they can be distinguished ([0039]), but neither Salour nor Dold teach that the indication part comprises a reflective material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, reference Dowdall teaches an autonomous vehicle with a sensor system for detecting and differentiating specific objects. Dowdall teaches that the indication part comprises a reflective material (Col 3, lines 38-59, highly reflective objects such as lane markers).
Dowdall is analogous to the art of sensor systems for autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the indication part and second sensor of the prior combination to be a reflective material and a sensor for detecting said reflective material based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Dowdall, to improve the detection of specific objects with indication markers at longer ranges (Col. 3, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Salour teaches that the second detection area is independent from the first detection area ([0047] and [0051]). Salour further teaches that the second sensor detects the indication parts of the vehicles ([0079]), but neither Salour nor Dold teach that the second sensor is a LIDAR sensor that detects the indication part.
However, in the same field of endeavor, reference Dowdall teaches an autonomous vehicle with a sensor system with a plurality of sensors for detecting and differentiating specific objects. Dowdall teaches that the second sensor is a LIDAR sensor that detects the indication part (Col 3, lines 38-59, LIDAR detects indication parts, namely highly reflective materials).
Dowdall is analogous to the art of sensor systems for autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the indication part and second sensor of the prior combination to be a reflective material and a sensor for detecting said reflective material based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Dowdall, to improve the detection of specific objects with indication markers at longer ranges (Col. 3, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10, and Salour further teaches that the searching for the common vehicle comprises identifying, by the second sensor, an indication part provided on the common vehicle ([0079]), the indication part having a predetermined reflectance.
Neither Salour nor Dold teach that the indication part has a predetermined reflectance. However, in the same field of endeavor, reference Dowdall teaches an autonomous vehicle with a sensor system with a plurality of sensors for detecting and differentiating specific objects. Dowdall teaches detecting an indication part having a predetermined reflectance (Col 3, lines 38-59, detect highly reflective materials; Col 17, lines 14-15, use predetermined thresholds of reflectance to determine if object is a reflective marker).
Dowdall is analogous to the art of sensor systems for autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the indication part and second sensor of the prior combination to be a reflective material and a sensor for detecting the reflectance of said indication part based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Dowdall, to improve the detection of specific objects with indication markers at longer ranges (Col. 3, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 18, and Salour further teaches that the second sensor comprises a LIDAR detector configured to detect a laser reflection from reflective indication parts provided on the common vehicles ([0079], indication part is a QR code).
Salour does not teach that the second sensor is a LIDAR detector, nor that the sensing of the indication parts is done by detecting a laser reflection from reflective indication parts. However, Dowdall teaches that the second sensor of the vehicle is a LIDAR detector that is configured to detect a laser reflection from reflective indication parts (Col. 3, lines 38-59).
Dowdall is analogous to the art of sensor systems for autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the indication part and second sensor of the prior combination to be a reflective material and a sensor for detecting the reflectance of said indication part based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Dowdall, to improve the detection of specific objects with indication markers at longer ranges (Col. 3, lines 30-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, applicant contests that the asserted limitation of “a distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and the another vehicle detected by the second sensor” is not taught or suggested by Salour and that Dold fails to cure this deficiency, with applicant arguing that "Dold's distinction is the opposite of the recited control: Dold stops vehicles if a non-vehicle (person) is detected but allows entry if a vehicle is detected and stationary. This is contrary to the claimed system, which distinguishes to control operation by stopping for detections from either sensor (object or vehicle) while using independent sensor areas to optimize avoidance-e.g., limiting the first sensor's area to reduce false stops from static objects”. This argument is unpersuasive. Dold teaches “a distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and the another vehicle detected by the second sensor” as objects are detected by a first sensor, i.e. sensor 36 of Dold, and are then compared to vehicles detected by a second sensor, i.e. the RFID reading devices 38A and 38B, so as to distinguish whether the object detected by a first sensor is a person or a vehicle (Dold, [0045-0046]). The result of this distinguishing is a determination that, upon a determination that an object is distinguished as not a vehicle, the vehicles of the system are subsequently controlled (Dold, [0047]). Therefore, as Dold does cure the deficiency of Salour, the combination does read on the limitations as claimed.
It is noted that applicant’s argument for why Dold fails to cure the deficiency of Salour (i.e., that the “claimed system…distinguishes to control operation by stopping for detections from either sensor (object or vehicle) while using independent sensor areas to optimize avoidance-e.g., limiting the first sensor's area to reduce false stops from static objects") relied on limitations not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The recited control of claim 1 merely requires "control[ling] an autonomous driving operation of the autonomous vehicle by distinguishing between an object detected by the first sensor and the another vehicle detected by the second sensor". Dold's stopping and allowing of entry satisfies that control based on a distinction between a first and second sensor (Dold, [0047], where the vehicles are sent “a command to stop immediately” following a distinction of a non-identifiable object as “collision with such a non-identifiable object has to be prevented at all costs for safety reasons”). As the controlling is not claimed in a manner that goes beyond the teachings of Dold, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to include the specific control following the distinction in a manner that reflects the differences over the prior art as noted in their arguments.
Applicant argues that "Dold's stationary system does not involve vehicle-mounted first/second sensors distinguishing for onboard autonomous control". It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the first/second sensors are "vehicle-mounted") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are silent as to where the sensors are located -– beyond the sensors detecting a first and second detection area. Therefore, there is no requirement that the sensors be "vehicle-mounted" in the present claims.
Applicant argues that "Salour's onboard sensors detect obstacles without the claimed distinction-based control, and incorporating Dold's RFID- based distinction would not result in the recited processor control, as Dold teaches proceeding for vehicles (not stopping/distinguishing as claimed)." As stated above in the presently filed office action, the claims do not recite a “distinction-based control” with sufficient metes and bounds that overcome the teachings of Dold. As a result, this argument is similarly unpersuasive.
Regarding the combination of Salour in view of Dold for claim 1, applicant argues that the “the Office's motivation – ‘allowing vehicles to be controlled differently depending on what type of object is determined to be near the vehicle’ for safety/efficiency – is improper hindsight, as it relies on Applicant's disclosure. Salour already achieves safety via generic obstacle handling and rerouting, without need for Dold's person-vs-vehicle distinction at stationary points. Combining would complicate Salour's system (e.g., adding RFID to onboard sensors) without addressing the recited distinction for autonomous operation control.” This argument is unpersuasive. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). This combination does not rely on any teaching from applicant's disclosure as the rationale and motivation for why one would modify Salour with the teachings of Dold come from Dold itself as Dold teaches that solely relying on vision based sensors are prone to errors, such as being blocked by "by vision-obstructing obstacles" (Dold, [0004]). The invention of Dold is also disclosed to be to “"ensure an improved distinction and/or identification of detected objects" (Dold, [0011]) for the motivation of unique control of vehicles based on the distinction, specifically for different control subsequent a person-vs-vehicle distinction being made (Dold, [0009]). Therefore, as the motivation for this combination takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing, any hindsight used is permissible and does not rise to the level of impermissible.
Applicant argues that "Dold teaches away from the combination by emphasizing stationary monitoring to avoid blind spots at intersections, not enhancing onboard sensor distinction as in Salour." This argument is unpersuasive. A combination of references that rises to the level of a valid teaching away exists only when such a combination is expressly prohibited by one of the references themselves. As no such prohibition is present in the references, such a combination is not prohibited.
Applicant argues that "neither Salour nor Dold teaches or suggests "control an entry...into any one zone of the plurality of zones in response to a driving signal...from a control server, as required by independent claim 1." This argument is unpersuasive. The "zone of the plurality of zones" does not have an explicit definition in the claims, nor is such a definition of a "zone" part of applicant's disclosure beyond that the zones are "set within a predetermined space" (see [0056] of applicant's spec). As a result, the claimed "zone" is given its broadest reasonable definition, which is interpreted by the examiner to include "the path of a vehicle" as was stated in para. 10 of the previously given rejection. Under this interpretation, Salour does disclose "control an entry...into any one path of the plurality of paths in response to a driving signal that is received from a control server" as it controls the vehicle into a path of the plurality of paths, with such a plurality of paths being exemplarily shown in Fig. 2 of Salour.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 12, applicant contests that the combination of Salour and Dold does not teach the limitation “restart[ing] the driving of the autonomous vehicle again when a detection signal is not received from the first sensor and the second sensor”, arguing that “Dold restarts only if a non-vehicle leaves ([0049]), not based on both sensors.” This argument is unpersuasive. Dold teaches that the vehicles are stopped when a detection is received from the first sensor and is unable to be distinguished with the second sensor (Dold, [0046-0048]). This means that the object is non-identifiable, meaning that a detection signal from the second sensor is not present. The movement of the vehicle is restarted when the object moves out of the vehicle path zone, which means that the detection signal of the first sensor for the object in the vehicle path zone is no longer received (Dold, [0049]). Therefore, as the restarting only occurs if a detection signal indicating that an object is in the vehicle path is not received by both sensors, Dold teaches the limitation as claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, applicant argues that the combination of Salour and Dold does not "recite requesting the driving signal after prolonged detection in a stopped state" as "Salour's time threshold triggers reroute ([0059], [0075]), not a post-stop server request for permission (Spec. [0130])." This argument is unpersuasive. As cited by the examiner in the priorly given rejection, this request is performed by the path control server sending a request for a reroute with a new permissible path to the vehicle monitoring system, where requests for a reroute are sent after the vehicle is stopped for a period of time due to a detected object in its path (see para. 18 of the previous rejection, citing [0056], [0059], and [0061] of Salour).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 19, applicant argues that the combination of Salour and Dold does not teach "changing the first detection area in response to driving direction change" as "Salour's LIDAR rotates for path scanning ([0047]), but this is implicit and not explicitly responsive to direction change for object detection in the changed area." This argument is unpersuasive. As cited by the examiner in the previous rejection, the first sensor of Salour is explicitly configured to "scan for the presence of obstacles in the path of the AGV 200" (see para. 20 of the previous rejection, which cites [0047] of Salour). As also shown in Fig. 2, the paths of the AGVs clearly change direction, the sensor system of each AGV is in the forward direction along its respective direction in which the AGV is traveling along. As a result, it necessarily flows from the disclosure of Salour that when the driving path of an AGV changes, its first sensor detection area also changes to match the direction of the new driving path. A change of the first sensor detection area occurring before such a change in the direction of the path of the AGV would result in the sensor no longer "[scanning] for the presence of obstacles in the path". Therefore, it is considered both implicit and obvious that the change in detection area of the AGV sensor occurs as a result of a driving direction change.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, applicant argues that the combination of Salour and Dold does not teach "requesting the signal before entering a changed/designated zone and driving without stopping on receipt" as "Salour requests reroutes after detection ([0056], [0067]), often involving stops ([0077]), not pre-entry without stopping (Spec. [0143]). " This argument is unpersuasive. As cited by the examiner in the priorly given rejection, Salour teaches that the signal for a new rerouting of the vehicle is sent before the vehicle travels along said new route (see para. 22 of the previous rejection, citing [0073] of Salour, where a request for rerouting occurs before the vehicle enters the changed zone) and, per the given obviousness statement, the entry of the vehicle into the new route without stopping is obvious in (see paras. 23-24 of the previous rejection, citing [0043] and [0065] of Salour).
Regarding claim 9, applicant argues that the combination of Salour and Dold does not teach "sequential driving signals per server-set sequence to restart" as "Salour sends sequential signals for monitoring ([0070]), but not sequence-based restarts post-stop (Spec. [0088]-[0092], Fig. 9)." This argument is unpersuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the prior rejection, such a teaching is obvious in view of the teachings of Dold, where the vehicles are controlled to restart (see paras. 26 and 27 of the previous rejection, citing [0049] of Dold, where the vehicles are controlled to restart their driving operations).
Regarding 15-16, applicant argues that the combination of Salour and Dold does not teach "stopping before zone entry, requesting permission, and entering on receipt, for changed or designated zones" as "Salour stops in-zone ([0077]), not pre-entry (Figs. 6- 7)." This argument is unpersuasive. As stated in the prior rejection, Salour stops the vehicle before an obstacle, requests a new path for the vehicle, and causes the vehicle to enter after the rerouted path is sent (see para. 44 of the previous rejection, citing [0077] of Salour, where the vehicles are stopped and a new route is requested before the vehicle travels on a new route as a result of a prolonged stoppage due to an obstacle).
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues that the combination of Salour and Dold does not teach "detecting via indication parts" as "Salour uses QR codes ([0079]), but not for the claimed distinction-based control." This argument is unpersuasive. As stated in the prior rejection, the QR codes are used to distinctly identify all of the vehicles (see para. 14 of the previous rejection). As stated above in the presently filed office action, the “distinction-based control” argued by the applicant is not claimed with language that sufficiently distinguishes between the claimed invention and the prior art as Salour does control the vehicles after they have been distinguished by the sensors using their QR codes (Salour, [0078-0079], where vehicles are identified and located for subsequent controlling based on the detected QR code that is used to distinguish them).
Regarding claims 3-4, 17, and 20, applicant argues that "Dowdall's markers are static road features (e.g., cat eyes), not vehicle-mounted indication parts for distinguishing vehicles from objects during autonomous operation", and that "Dowdall focuses on size changes over distance to identify markers vs. obstacles (Col. 17, lines 14-15), not for vehicle detection as claimed." This argument is unpersuasive. Salour teaches the vehicle-mounted indication parts and detecting vehicle by detecting these indication parts as relied upon for claim 2 (Salour, [0079]). A combination of Salour with Dowdall would merely modify the indication parts of Salour to be reflective, and would modify the sensors of the system to be able to detect said reflective part. As such, applicant’s assertion that Dowdall does not teach “vehicle-mounted indication parts for distinguishing vehicles from objects during autonomous operation” is not pertinent to the given rejection as Dowdall is not relied upon to teach this limitation, and one cannot attack references individually when a combination is used.
Regarding the combination of Salour and Dold in further view of Dowdall for claims 3-4, 17, and 20, applicant argues that “the Office's motivation ‘to improve the detection of specific objects with indication markers at longer ranges’ is improper hindsight.” This argument is unpersuasive. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). This combination does not rely on any teaching from applicant's disclosure as the rationale and motivation for why one would modify the indication parts of Salour come from Dowdall itself. As described in the previous rejection, the purpose for the modification of the combination of Salour and Dold with the teachings of Dowdall is to simply make the already existing identifying marker or code pattern of Salour reflective for the motivation to "improve the detection of specific objects with indication markers at longer ranges" (see para. 56 of the previous rejection, citing Dowdall, Col. 3, lines 30-35). Therefore, as the motivation for this combination takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing, any hindsight used is permissible.
As a result of these arguments being unpersuasive, the previously cited art remains applied in the present Office Action.
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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights