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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
Applicant respectfully asserts that Doane and Carter - whether considered alone or in any proper combination-fail to disclose, teach, or suggest a vehicle system "wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence," recited by amended independent Claim 1.
The Office Action acknowledges that Doane is silent regarding "wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence," instead relying on Carter for allegedly disclosing these elements. The Office Action analogizes the "three dimensional geofence" of Claim 1 with the "containment boundary 1420 which may not be permissible for the cart to cross," and "different floors [having] different shopping cart containment boundaries (e.g., boundary 118 of FIG. 1)" of Carter. (Office Action, page 5). However, the containment boundary 1420 does not have a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the cart is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the cart relative to the containment boundary 1420.
Rather, Paragraph [0216] of Carter discloses:
The <x,y> coordinates of each relevant feature can be determined relative to the center point 1405 of the front face of the store in this particular example. In some embodiments, the choice of <x,y> coordinate system can be made for the convenience of the installation design (e.g., referenced to architectural plans or property boundaries which may determine some of the containment boundaries).
Accordingly, the containment boundary 1420 determined by the "<x,y> coordinate system" disclosed by Carter does not have a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions as recited by amended independent Claim 1.
Accordingly, for the various reasons outlined above, Doane and Carter do not disclose, teach, or suggest independent Claim 1. The remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies of Doane and Carter in this regard. Claims 2-16 depend from independent Claim 1, and are patentable over the art of record for at least the same reasons as independent Claim 1, as well as for reciting other novel and nonobvious elements. Favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that the teachings of Carter appear to teach the limitations of Independent Claim 1 under their broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant primarily appears to assert above that the “three dimensional geofence” as defined by the amended claim(s) differs from the invention described by Carter. Examiner respectfully asserts that the containment boundary system described by Carter appears to extend in three-dimensions as required by the present claimed invention. While Paragraph 0216 of Carter, recited by Applicant above, indicates an x/y coordinate system, as set forth by the Examiner in rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 below, Paragraphs 0215, 0353 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the boundaries may extend to multiple floors of a multi-level structure, with the containment boundaries differing for each floor, such that the present altitude of the cart may be used in the determination of the current floor, and the specific corresponding containment boundaries. As the coordinate system therefore includes different containment boundaries for each floor, the current floor being determined based on an assessed present altitude, Examiner respectfully asserts that the containment boundaries extend in three dimensions [a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the cart is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the cart relative to the containment boundary] as recited by the amended claim(s). Thus, Applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 & 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to Independent Claim 17, the claim recites at least the following limitations:
monitor a location of the golf vehicle relative to a restricted operation area;
permit unrestricted operation of the golf vehicle in a first mode of operation when the location of the golf vehicle indicates that the golf vehicle is located outside of the restricted operation area; and
limit operation of the golf vehicle to a second mode of operation when the location of the golf vehicle indicates that the golf vehicle is located in the restricted operation area,
wherein the golf vehicle operates on a golf course including:
a cart path; an overpass; and a tunnel under the overpass providing a passage for the cart path to extend under the overpass;
wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence formed around the tunnel such that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
limit operation of the golf vehicle to the second mode of operation responsive to a determination that the golf vehicle has driven into the tunnel; and
permit unrestricted operation of the golf vehicle responsive to a determination that the golf vehicle is on the overpass vertically above the restricted operation area.
No single prior art reference, nor combination of references, has been found to anticipate the above limitations when read in view of the remaining limitations of the claim. Particularly, no single prior art reference, nor combination of references, has been found to anticipate a golf vehicle configured to operate relative to a geofence, the geofence being three-dimensional and defining an area around an overpass and tunnel, such that the vehicle is limited to different modes of operation responsive to determining that the vehicle is in the tunnel or on the overpass vertically above the tunnel as recited by the present claimed invention.
The closest prior art found is Doane (US 2018/0120835 A1) and Xu (US 2020/0327804 A1), Doane reciting a robotic golf caddy configured to operate relative to restricted areas, and Xu reciting a vehicle control method including the restriction of operation based on the type of road segment travel takes place on.
More specifically, Doane recites an autonomous robotic golf caddy, configured to operate relative to restricted operation areas. The autonomous caddy is configured to operate without restriction until the edge of a hazardous or otherwise restricted area is reached, following which the autonomous golf caddy is configured to stop or otherwise follow a different set of movement rules. Doane however appears to be silent regarding wherein a three-dimensional geofence is provided for restricting vehicle operation, much less wherein the geofence is specifically configured around a tunnel and overpass to restrict the movement of the vehicle differently when travelling along each as recited by the present claimed invention.
Xu recites wherein a road geometry may include a plurality of road attributes associated with the road segment, said road attributes including the type of road structure, such as a bridge, tunnel, overpass, and the like, Xu further recites wherein the road segment records may contain data indicating restrictions, if any, on the relevant section or classification of the roadway, including speed category and direction of travel restrictions. Xu however appears to be silent regarding wherein geofences are provided to divide areas and accordingly restrict vehicle operation, much less wherein the geofence is three-dimensional and specifically configured around a tunnel and overpass to restrict the movement of the vehicle differently when travelling along each as recited by the present claimed invention.
Thus, Independent Claim 17 is found to be allowable. Claim 21 depends on Independent Claim 17, and is found to be allowable based on its dependence on an allowable base claim, as well as the limitations recited within.
Claims 11 & 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dependent Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Independent Claim 17, which has been determined to be allowable as set forth above. Thus, Dependent Claim 11 would similarly be allowable if rewritten in Independent form. Claim 12 depends on Dependent Claim 11, incorporating all such limitations, and is similarly found to be allowable if rewritten in Independent form. .
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7 - 9, 15 - 16, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane (US 2018/0120835 A1) in view of Carter (US 2018/0257688 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Doane discloses: A vehicle system comprising: (Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0005 an autonomous robotic golf caddy [i.e. a vehicle system] configured to operate based on a determination of if the robot is in or moving towards an unacceptable or unauthorized location)
a vehicle including: a chassis; a plurality of tractive assemblies coupled to the chassis; and a prime mover configured to drive one or more of the plurality of tractive assemblies; and a control system configured to: (Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0005 wherein the robotic golf caddy [i.e. vehicle] includes a vehicle frame [i.e. chassis], a plurality of wheels [i.e. plurality of tractive assemblies coupled to the chassis], a motor [i.e. a prime mover configured to drive one or more of the plurality of tractive assemblies], and a processor unit [i.e. control system], among other components)
monitor a location of the vehicle relative to a restricted operation area; (Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0032 wherein the position of the robotic golf caddy is continuously determined via a plurality of sensors, such as a GPS system as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0019 [i.e. monitoring a location of the vehicle]. At least Paragraph 0032 of Doane further discloses wherein the present location of the robotic golf caddy may be overlayed [i.e. compared to] a map of the golf course to determine the position of the robotic golf caddy relative to determined zones or areas of interest, including hazardous or otherwise restricted areas [i.e. a restricted operation area] which may be defined by Geo Fences as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0039, which the robotic caddy may navigate based on as disclosed in Paragraphs 0024 & 0039 [i.e. the location relative to a restricted operation area is monitored])
permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle in a first mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located outside of the restricted operation area; and (Doane discloses in at least Paragraphs 0032, 0038, & 0039 wherein the robotic golf caddy may be configured to follow a user based on a determined position of a remote transmitter carried by the user as the user traverses the golf course. The robotic golf caddy may be configured to operate using a set of movement rules, particularly avoiding entering restricted operation areas, with the robotic golf caddy being configured to plot a path of travel around restricted or unpermitted areas when the user enters/exits such a zone, with a shortest possible path to follow a user being determined and executed as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0040 [i.e. permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle in a first mode of operation when the vehicle is located outside of the restricted operation area])
limit operation of the vehicle to a second mode of operation or a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area, (Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0039 wherein when the robotic golf caddy reaches the edge of a restricted zone [i.e. when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area], the robotic golf caddy is programmed to stop at [or near] the edge of the zone, the stopping of the vehicle being defined as the third mode of operation in at least Paragraph 0038 of the present specification, as well as Dependent Claim 3 [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area])
Doane however appears to be silent regarding:
wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence.
However Carter teaches wherein boundaries may be defined for the movement of a cart, spanning different floor levels of a building, with the altitude of the cart being determined to assess which boundaries should be applied based on the determined floor.
wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence. (However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure, where different floors have different cart containment boundaries, the system including a multi-level map of the structure including boundaries and vertices of containment areas as taught in at least Paragraphs 0215 & 0273 of Carter [i.e. a three dimensional geofence defining a restricted operation area having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions]. At least Paragraphs 0353 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the altitude of the cart may be determined and compared to a closest floor altitude to determine the current containment boundaries of the cart based on the floor [i.e. a vertical y-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence, as well as the floor boundaries being defined in horizontal x and z-coordinates]. At least Paragraphs 0095 & 0270 of Carter teach wherein based on the boundaries of the containment area being approached or crossed by the cart, the motion of the cart may be restricted, for example by locking the cart wheels [i.e. the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a vertical y-position and horizontal x & z-positions of the vehicle relative to the three-dimensional geofence])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the use of a three-dimensional boundary zone to restrict movement of an apparatus to different boundary zones based on altitude and determined ‘floor’ as taught by Carter.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Carter in at least Paragraph 0353, different containment boundaries and logic may be defined for different levels of a structure, improving the setting of boundaries of movement for a vehicle operating in a multi-level environment, and the resulting restriction of movement of the vehicle to a designated region.
Regarding Claim 3:
The vehicle system of Claim 2, wherein limiting operation of the vehicle to the third mode of operation by the control system includes at least one of: transmitting no power to the prime mover or applying brakes to stop the vehicle; or limiting the vehicle to rearward travel only.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0039 wherein the robotic golf caddy may be configured to stop at the edge of a restricted zone, stopping taking place through the use of a parking brake or dynamic braking as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0061 [i.e. the third mode of operation by the control system includes applying brakes to stop the vehicle].
Regarding Claim 4:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle operates within a multi-level venue including: a plurality of levels including at least a base level and a second level above the base level; a floor separating each level of the plurality of levels; and a ramp connecting the plurality of levels.
Doane does not appear to specifically recite wherein the vehicle operates in a multi-level venue including a plurality of levels and a ramp connecting floors.
However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure [i.e. a multi-level venue including: a plurality of levels including at least a base level and a second level above the base level; a floor separating each level of the plurality of levels], where different floors have different cart containment boundaries. At least Paragraphs 0354 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the floors may be connected by an inclined ramp [i.e. a ramp connecting floors].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the implementation of the system in a building with multiple floors as taught by Carter.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Carter in at least Paragraph 0353, different containment boundaries and logic may be defined for different levels of a structure, improving the setting of boundaries of movement for a vehicle operating in a multi-level structure.
Regarding Claim 7:
The vehicle system of Claim 4, wherein the three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels such that the control system is configured to limit operation of the vehicle to the third mode of operation responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven in the portion of the respective level, thereby restricting the vehicle to a remaining portion of the respective level.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0039 wherein when the robotic golf caddy reaches the edge of a restricted zone [i.e. when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area], the robotic golf caddy is programmed to stop at [or near] the edge of the zone, the stopping of the vehicle being defined as the third mode of operation in at least Paragraph 0038 of the present specification, as well as Dependent Claim 3 [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area]. Doane however appears to be silent regarding wherein the three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels.
However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure, where different floors have different cart containment boundaries, the system including a multi-level map of the structure including boundaries and vertices of containment areas as taught in at least Paragraphs 0215 & 0273 of Carter [i.e. a three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels]. At least Paragraphs 0353 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the altitude of the cart may be determined and compared to a closest floor altitude to determine the current containment boundaries of the cart based on the floor [i.e. a respective level]. At least Paragraphs 0095 & 0270 of Carter teach wherein based on the boundaries of the containment area being approached or crossed by the cart, the motion of the cart may be restricted, for example by locking the cart wheels [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the use of a three-dimensional boundary zone to restrict movement of an apparatus based on altitude and determined ‘floor’ as taught by Carter.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Carter in at least Paragraph 0353, different containment boundaries and logic may be defined for different levels of a structure, improving the setting of boundaries of movement for a vehicle operating in a multi-level environment.
Regarding Claim 8:
The vehicle system of Claim 4, wherein the three dimensional geofence is formed around a portion of a first respective level of the plurality of levels such that the control system is configured to: limit operation of the vehicle responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven in the portion of the first respective level; and at least one of: permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle responsive to a determination that the vehicle is vertically above the portion of the first respective level on a second respective level of the plurality of levels above the first respective level; or permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle responsive to a determination that the vehicle is vertically below the portion of the first respective level on a third respective level of the plurality of levels below the first respective level.
At least Paragraph 0032 of Doane discloses wherein the present location of the robotic golf caddy may be overlayed with a map to determine the position of the robotic golf caddy relative to determined zones or areas of interest, including hazardous or otherwise restricted areas [i.e. a restricted operation area] which may be defined by Geo Fences as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0039, which the robotic caddy may navigate based on as disclosed in Paragraphs 0024 & 0039 [i.e. the location relative to a restricted operation area is monitored]. Doane further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0039 wherein the robotic golf caddy may be configured to stop at the edge of a restricted zone and operate freely outside said restricted area. Doane however does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a three-dimensional geofence restricts [or does not restrict] movement based on a vertical position or level of the structure.
However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure, where different floors have different cart containment boundaries, the system including a multi-level map of the structure including boundaries and vertices of containment areas as taught in at least Paragraphs 0215 & 0273 of Carter [i.e. a three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area(s) formed around portion(s) of the respective level of the plurality of levels]. At least Paragraphs 0353 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the altitude of the cart may be determined and compared to a closest floor altitude to determine the current containment boundaries of the cart based on the floor [i.e. a respective level]. At least Paragraphs 0095 & 0270 of Carter teach wherein based on the boundaries of the containment area being approached or crossed by the cart, the motion of the cart may be restricted, for example by locking the cart wheels [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area].
Examiner asserts that the combination of Doane and Carter renders obvious the present claimed invention. Doane discloses a plurality of geofence-based restricted operation zones where the cart cannot travel, and Carter teaches wherein boundary areas may be defined for a multi-level structure, with the altitude of the cart being used to determine which boundary regions are applicable based on the floor corresponding to said altitude. Thus, while not explicitly recited by Carter, different floors of the structure of Carter, having different boundaries restricting operation, would result in vehicle operation being limited in an area of one level, while not being restricted in any manner when on the floor position vertically above or below the portion of the first level in which operation is restricted as recited by the present claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9:
The vehicle system of Claim 4, wherein the three dimensional geofence is a first three dimensional geofence defining a first restricted operation area and formed around a first portion of the multi-level venue, and wherein a second three dimensional geofence defining a second restricted operation area is formed around a second portion of the multi-level venue.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0032 wherein the position of the robotic golf caddy is continuously determined and overlayed with a map of the golf course to determine the position of the robotic golf caddy relative to determined zones or areas of interest, including hazardous or otherwise restricted areas [i.e. a plurality of restricted operation areas around first and second portions of a venue] which may be defined by Geo Fences as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0039, which the robotic caddy may navigate based on as disclosed in Paragraphs 0024 & 0039 of Doane. Doane however appears to be silent wherein the geofence is defined around a multi-level venue.
However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure, where different floors have different cart containment boundaries, the system including a multi-level map of the structure including boundaries and vertices of containment areas as taught in at least Paragraphs 0215 & 0273 of Carter [i.e. a three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the use of a three-dimensional boundary zone to restrict movement of an apparatus based on altitude and determined ‘floor’ as taught by Carter.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Carter in at least Paragraph 0353, different containment boundaries and logic may be defined for different levels of a structure, improving the setting of boundaries of movement for a vehicle operating in a multi-level environment.
Regarding Claim 15:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, emergency vehicle, an all-terrain vehicle, a utility task vehicle, lightweight or recreational vehicle, or a lawnmower.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009 & 0030 wherein the robotic golf caddy may be embodied as a vehicle including a plurality of motive components, designed to carry golf bags [i.e. a utility task vehicle].
Regarding Claim 16:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the control system includes one or more processing circuits including at least one of (a) a first processing circuit located on the vehicle or (b) a second processing circuit located remote from the vehicle.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0010 wherein the robotic golf caddy may include a processor unit [i.e. a first processing circuit located on the vehicle] configured to be programmed with information including map data and software for operating the robotic golf caddy based on the determined location [i.e. a first processing circuit located on the vehicle].
Regarding Claim 20:
Doane discloses: A vehicle system for controlling operation of a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising: (Doane discloses in at least Paragraphs 0005 & 0010 an autonomous robotic golf caddy including a processor unit configured to control one or more functions of the robotic golf caddy [i.e. a vehicle system for controlling operation of a vehicle], the robotic golf caddy being configured to operate based on a determination of if the robot is in or moving towards an unacceptable or unauthorized location)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Doane discloses in at least Paragraphs 0010 & 0027 wherein the processor unit of the robotic golf caddy may include a memory unit and associated software [i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon coupled to one or more processors, the instructions being configured to be executed by the one or more processors])
monitor a location of the vehicle relative to a restricted operation area; (Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0032 wherein the position of the robotic golf caddy is continuously determined via a plurality of sensors, such as a GPS system as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0019 [i.e. monitoring a location of the vehicle]. At least Paragraph 0032 of Doane further teaches wherein the present location of the robotic golf caddy may be overlayed [i.e. compared to] a map of the golf course to determine the position of the robotic golf caddy relative to determined zones or areas of interest, including hazardous or otherwise restricted areas [i.e. a restricted operation area] which may be defined by Geo Fences as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0039, which the robotic caddy may navigate based on as disclosed in Paragraphs 0024 & 0039 [i.e. the location relative to a restricted operation area is monitored])
permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle in a first mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located outside of the restricted operation area; and (Doane discloses in at least Paragraphs 0032, 0038, & 0039 wherein the robotic golf caddy may be configured to follow a user based on a determined position of a remote transmitter carried by the user as the user traverses the golf course. The robotic golf caddy may be configured to operate using a set of movement rules, particularly avoiding entering restricted operation areas, with the robotic golf caddy being configured to plot a path of travel around restricted or unpermitted areas when the user enters/exits such a zone, with a shortest possible path to follow a user being determined and executed as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0040 [i.e. permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle in a first mode of operation when the vehicle is located outside of the restricted operation area])
limit operation of the vehicle to a second mode of operation or a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area, (Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0039 wherein when the robotic golf caddy reaches the edge of a restricted zone [i.e. when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area], the robotic golf caddy is programmed to stop at [or near] the edge of the zone, the stopping of the vehicle being defined as the third mode of operation in at least Paragraph 0038 of the present specification, as well as Dependent Claim 3 [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area])
Doane however appears to be silent regarding:
wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence.
However Carter teaches wherein boundaries may be defined for the movement of a cart, spanning different floor levels of a building, with the altitude of the cart being determined to assess which boundaries should be applied based on the determined floor.
wherein the restricted operation area is defined by a three dimensional geofence having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions, such that operation of the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a horizontal x-position, a vertical y-position, and a horizontal z-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence. (However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure, where different floors have different cart containment boundaries, the system including a multi-level map of the structure including boundaries and vertices of containment areas as taught in at least Paragraphs 0215 & 0273 of Carter [i.e. a three dimensional geofence defining a restricted operation area having a volume extending in x, y, and z coordinate directions]. At least Paragraphs 0353 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the altitude of the cart may be determined and compared to a closest floor altitude to determine the current containment boundaries of the cart based on the floor [i.e. a vertical y-position of the vehicle relative to the three dimensional geofence, as well as the floor boundaries being defined in horizontal x and z-coordinates]. At least Paragraphs 0095 & 0270 of Carter teach wherein based on the boundaries of the containment area being approached or crossed by the cart, the motion of the cart may be restricted, for example by locking the cart wheels [i.e. the vehicle is permitted or limited based on a vertical y-position and horizontal x & z-positions of the vehicle relative to the three-dimensional geofence])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the use of a three-dimensional boundary zone to restrict movement of an apparatus based on altitude and determined ‘floor’ as taught by Carter.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Carter in at least Paragraph 0353, different containment boundaries and logic may be defined for different levels of a structure, improving the setting of boundaries of movement for a vehicle operating in a multi-level environment.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane (US 2018/0120835 A1) in view of Carter (US 2018/0257688 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, & 17 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2012/0197464 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein limiting operation of the vehicle to the second mode of operation by the control system includes limiting operation of the prime mover such that the vehicle cannot exceed a threshold speed.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0014 wherein the speed of the robotic golf caddy may be adjusted in response to the detection of an object, and further teaches in at least Paragraph 0043 wherein a top speed of the robotic golf caddy may be defined, however Doane appears to be silent regarding adjusting this speed in response to entering a restricted operation area.
However Wang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0268 & 0271 wherein a region of a map may be tagged in order to associate behaviors of a robot with specific region(s), said behaviors including limiting a speed of the robot to a predetermined velocity when operating in the region [i.e. wherein limiting operation of the vehicle to the second mode of operation includes limiting operation such that the vehicle cannot exceed a threshold speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the limiting of vehicle speed within specified regions as taught by Wang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wang in at least Paragraph 0200, a robot’s operational safety may be improved by limiting the drive speed in congested, constrained, or highly dynamic environments.
Regarding Claim 5:
The vehicle system of Claim 4, wherein the three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around the ramp connecting the base level and the second level such that the control system is configured to limit operation of the vehicle to the second mode of operation responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven onto the ramp.
Doane does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operation of the vehicle is restricted in response to determining that the vehicle has driven onto a ramp of a multi-level venue including a plurality of levels with the ramp connecting floors.
However as set forth above, Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure [i.e. a multi-level venue including: a plurality of levels including at least a base level and a second level above the base level; a floor separating each level of the plurality of levels], where different floors have different cart containment boundaries. At least Paragraphs 0354 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the floors may be connected by an inclined ramp [i.e. a ramp connecting floors].
However Wang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0255 wherein a tag may be used in map data to indicate the location of a floor ramp, said tag being used to determine behavior of a mobile robot as taught in at least Paragraphs 0289 & 0290 of Wang. At least Paragraphs 0268 & 0271 of Wang further teach wherein a region of a map may be tagged to limit a speed of the robot to a predetermined velocity when operating in the tagged region [i.e. the second mode of operation as set forth above], such that a tagged ramp area would include a speed limitation when operating in the ramp area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the tagging of a ramp area for restricting operation when operating on the ramp as taught by Wang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wang in at least Paragraphs 0200 & 0290, the safety of the vehicle may be improved by operating more cautiously in a ramped zone in which operation may be hazardous for the vehicle by limiting the drive speed in such a constrained environment.
Regarding Claim 6:
The vehicle system of Claim 4, wherein the three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around the ramp connecting the base level and the second level such that the control system is configured to limit operation of the vehicle to the third mode of operation responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven onto the ramp, thereby restricting the vehicle to the base level or the second level.
Doane does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operation of the vehicle is restricted in response to determining that the vehicle has driven onto a ramp of a multi-level venue including a plurality of levels with the ramp connecting floors.
However as set forth above, Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure [i.e. a multi-level venue including: a plurality of levels including at least a base level and a second level above the base level; a floor separating each level of the plurality of levels], where different floors have different cart containment boundaries. At least Paragraphs 0354 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the floors may be connected by an inclined ramp [i.e. a ramp connecting floors].
However Wang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0255 wherein a tag may be used in map data to indicate the location of a floor ramp, said tag being used to determine behavior of a mobile robot as taught in at least Paragraphs 0289 & 0290 of Wang. At least Paragraph 0290 of Wang further teaches wherein the robot may determine the destination of the robot as an unsafe location to stop based on the destination being within a zone represented by a ramp tag, and stopping the robot at a location just before the ramp based on such a determination [i.e. limit operation of the vehicle to the third mode of operation responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven onto the ramp, thereby restricting the vehicle to the base level or the second level].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the stopping of the vehicle before entering a ramped surface as taught by Wang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wang in at least Paragraph 0290, the safety of the vehicle may be improved by not entering a ramped zone in which operation may be hazardous for the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18:
The vehicle system of Claim 17, wherein the vehicle operates within a multi-level venue including: a plurality of levels; a floor separating each level of the plurality of levels; and a ramp connecting the plurality of levels,
Doane does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operation of the vehicle is restricted in response to determining that the vehicle has driven onto a ramp of a multi-level venue including a plurality of levels with the ramp connecting floors.
However as set forth above, Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure [i.e. a multi-level venue including: a plurality of levels including at least a base level and a second level above the base level; a floor separating each level of the plurality of levels], where different floors have different cart containment boundaries. At least Paragraphs 0354 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the floors may be connected by an inclined ramp [i.e. a ramp connecting floors].
wherein the three dimensional geofence is a first three dimensional geofence defining a first restricted operation area and formed around the ramp connecting a first level of the plurality of levels and a second level of the plurality of levels such that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to limit operation of the vehicle to the second mode of operation responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven onto the ramp, and
However Wang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0255 wherein a tag may be used in map data to indicate the location of a floor ramp, said tag being used to determine behavior of a mobile robot as taught in at least Paragraphs 0289 & 0290 of Wang. At least Paragraphs 0268 & 0271 of Wang further teach wherein a region of a map may be tagged to limit a speed of the robot to a predetermined velocity when operating in the tagged region [i.e. the second mode of operation as set forth above], such that a tagged ramp area would include a speed limitation when operating in the ramp area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the tagging of a ramp area for restricting operation when operating on the ramp as taught by Wang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wang in at least Paragraphs 0200 & 0290, the safety of the vehicle may be improved by operating more cautiously in a ramped zone in which operation may be hazardous for the vehicle by limiting the drive speed in such a constrained environment.
wherein a second three dimensional geofence defining a second restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels such that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to limit operation of the vehicle to the third mode of operation responsive to a determination that the vehicle has driven in the portion of the respective level, thereby restricting the vehicle to a remaining portion of the respective level.
Doane discloses in at least Paragraph 0039 wherein when the robotic golf caddy reaches the edge of a restricted zone [i.e. when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area], the robotic golf caddy is programmed to stop at [or near] the edge of the zone, the stopping of the vehicle being defined as the third mode of operation in at least Paragraph 0038 of the present specification, as well as Dependent Claim 3 [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area]. Doane however appears to be silent regarding wherein the three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels.
However Carter teaches in at least Paragraph 0353 wherein a cart may operate in a multi-floor structure, where different floors have different cart containment boundaries, the system including a multi-level map of the structure including boundaries and vertices of containment areas as taught in at least Paragraphs 0215 & 0273 of Carter [i.e. a three dimensional geofence defining the restricted operation area is formed around a portion of a respective level of the plurality of levels]. At least Paragraphs 0353 & 0356 of Carter further teach wherein the altitude of the cart may be determined and compared to a closest floor altitude to determine the current containment boundaries of the cart based on the floor [i.e. a respective level]. At least Paragraphs 0095 & 0270 of Carter teach wherein based on the boundaries of the containment area being approached or crossed by the cart, the motion of the cart may be restricted, for example by locking the cart wheels [i.e. limit operation to a third mode of operation when the location of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the use of a three-dimensional boundary zone to restrict movement of an apparatus based on altitude and determined ‘floor’ as taught by Carter.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Carter in at least Paragraph 0353, different containment boundaries and logic may be defined for different levels of a structure, improving the setting of boundaries of movement for a vehicle operating in a multi-level environment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane (US 2018/0120835 A1) in view of Carter (US 2018/0257688 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Harvey (US 2019/0377364 A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
The vehicle system of Claim 4, wherein the control system includes a processing circuit located remote from the vehicle, further comprising a beacon configured to be positioned within the multi-level venue and configured to facilitate transmission of signals between the vehicle and the processing circuit.
Doane does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a beacon is provided to provide communication between a vehicle and processing circuit.
However Harvey teaches in at least Paragraph 0063 a central computer configured to direct the movements of multiple vehicles, which may be located within a vehicle storage or parking facility, or otherwise remotely [i.e. the control system includes a processing circuit located remote from the vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0125, 0136, & 0159 of Harvey further teach wherein a zone entry/exit facilities may be implemented as a communications based point of contact at entry or exit points of the facility, the communication with which by the vehicle causes the vehicles to be controlled by the zone authority central computer while within the relevant zone [i.e. a beacon configured to be positioned within the multi-level venue and configured to facilitate transmission of signals between the vehicle and the processing circuit].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the use of a remote processing circuit and associated beacon for controlling a vehicle as taught by Harvey.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Harvey in at least Paragraph 0159, the vehicles may be appropriately navigated in areas in which operations would be difficult without centralized control, improving the coordination of control of vehicle(s) in accordance with zone restrictions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane (US 2018/0120835 A1) in view of Carter (US 2018/0257688 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleve (US 2014/0129053 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to selectively permit or limit operation of the vehicle responsive to a determination that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area based on at least one of credentials associated with the vehicle or credentials associated with an operator of the vehicle.
Doane does not appear to specifically disclose wherein operation of the vehicle is selectively permitted or limited based on the credentials associated with the vehicle or operator.
However Kleve teaches in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein a vehicle owner may set restrictions on a temporary user’s ability to use a vehicle, including the definition of restricted areas as defined by the vehicle owner. Kleve further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0075 wherein a vehicle may download restrictions assigned by the vehicle owner for the temporary user, and may limit operation of the vehicle, such as restricting top vehicle speed, when the vehicle operated by the temporary user with whom the restrictions are associated enters the restricted area [i.e. operation of the vehicle is limited responsive to a determination that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area based on at least one of credentials associated with an operator of the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the restriction of vehicle operation in an area based on user credentials as taught by Kleve.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kleve in at least Paragraph 0076, the vehicle owner may be better ensured that the vehicle is being operated in an approved manner, improving the owner control of the vehicle while the vehicle is being operated by a temporary user.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane (US 2018/0120835 A1) in view of Carter (US 2018/0257688 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenberg (US 2019/0178660 A1).
Regarding Claim 14:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to selectively permit or limit operation of the vehicle responsive to a determination that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area based on a type of the vehicle.
Doane does not appear to specifically disclose wherein vehicle operation is permitted or limited in a restricted operation area based on the type of vehicle.
However Greenberg teaches in at least Paragraphs 0023 & 0026 wherein vehicle type restrictions may be made for restricted areas, such as only vehicles classified as SUVs and trucks being prohibited to travel within a restricted area [i.e. selectively permit or limit operation of the vehicle responsive to a determination that the vehicle is located in the restricted operation area based on a type of the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Doane by incorporating the restriction of vehicle operation based on vehicle type as taught by Greenberg.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Greenberg in at least Paragraph 0026, vehicles classified into certain categories may be prevented from operating in an area during times where their presence would cause undue interference, improving the traffic flow of an area.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Anvari (US 11,538,336 B1): Anvari recites an object control system configured to control navigation of vehicles in a freeway environment, including collecting navigation information form an IoT network, and determining control actions for a plurality of vehicles based on such. The freeway environment may include different road types, such as overpasses and underpasses, which the vehicle(s) may traverse.
Xu (US 2020/0327804 A1): Xu recites wherein a road geometry may include a plurality of road attributes associated with the road segment, said road attributes including the type of road structure, such as a bridge, tunnel, overpass, and the like, Xu further recites wherein the road segment records may contain data indicating restrictions, if any, on the relevant section or classification of the roadway, including speed category and direction of travel restrictions.
Gantenapalli (NPL: Securing Vehicles with Arduino: Implementing Geo-fencing Technology for Theft Prevention): Gantenapalli recites a virtual boundary geofencing system configured to restrict movement of a vehicle in an environment based on the determined location of the vehicle relative to the geofence. The geofence areas may be predefined with a plurality of boundaries, with the vehicle taking remedial actions based on the entry of the vehicle into a geofenced area, including the issuance of an alert and/or the shutdown of the vehicle engine.
Li (CN 115096287 A): Li recites a vehicle system, including establishing geofences corresponding to local map sites, with the position of the vehicle being determined to compare to the geofence boundaries, determining if the vehicle is within the specified area or not. Local map data may be acquired corresponding to the relevant geofence determined.
Harvey (US 2019/0377364 A1): Harvey recites a computer system configured to direct the movements of multiple vehicles, including the direction of vehicles through a tunnel. The entry and exit points of the tunnel may be used as zone authority gates to cause the vehicles to be controlled by a central zone authority responsive to vehicle entry.
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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights