DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 29 April 2026. Claims 1-19 and 21 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority based on an application, 371 of PCT/EP2022/059791, filed on 12 April 2022.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 29 April 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections; and maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 8-10, that US-20170316692-A1 (“Rusciolelli”) does not disclose or suggest different navigational tolerances when utilizing a second driving behavior and a first driving behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rusciolelli discloses different vehicle traveling speeds and other navigational commands based on utilizing the first driving behavior and the second driving behavior (see Rusciolelli, para. 0008). For this reason, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20170316692-A1, hereinafter “Rusciolelli” (previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, and analogous claim 19, Rusciolelli discloses A control system for controlling a fleet of autonomous vehicles which are adapted to travel along driving paths in an area (Rusciolelli, claim 11-20; FIGs. 3, 8A-8B; para. 0004: “The present invention provides a system [i.e., A control system] for conducting agricultural operations in a field [i.e., in an area] using autonomous vehicles [i.e., for controlling a fleet of autonomous vehicles] in which a collision avoidance mechanism may be provided. The system may include providing a mission plan [i.e., which are adapted to travel along driving paths] for autonomous vehicles to conduct agricultural operations, establishing a hierarchy for the vehicles, and monitoring for an event conditions indicating vehicles are traveling toward a collision with respect to one another. Upon receiving an event condition, the system may revise the mission plan to adjust a path of one of the vehicles [i.e., which are adapted to travel along driving paths] based on the hierarchy in order to avoid the collision.”);
Regarding claim 19, Rusciolelli discloses A method for controlling a fleet of autonomous vehicles which are adapted to travel along driving paths in an area (Rusciolelli, claim 1-10; para. 0014: “…a method for conducting an agricultural operation including: (a) providing a mission plan for first and second autonomous vehicles, the mission plan including first and second paths for the first and second autonomous vehicles to travel while performing first and second agricultural operations, respectively…”);
wherein the fleet of autonomous vehicles comprises at least two vehicles, each vehicle being adapted to utilize a first and a second driving behaviour when driving along a driving path (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 3, 8A-8B; para. 0007: “Each vehicle which may be used in agricultural operations, or actively involved in agricultural operations, may be placed in a hierarchy (ranked). This hierarchy may be used for conflict resolution to determine which vehicle has the right of way and which vehicle will give way.”; para. 0008: “To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision [i.e., each vehicle being adapted to utilize a first and a second driving behaviour when driving along a driving path]. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass [i.e., each vehicle being adapted to utilize a first and a second driving behaviour when driving along a driving path]. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”),
wherein, the first driving behaviour is associated with driving closer to an edge of a road section, in relation to the second driving behaviour, which is associated with driving further away from the edge and closer to a center line of the road section (Rusciolelli, FIG. 3: field 50, paths 60, first section 64, second section 66; FIGs. 8A-8B: paths 60, collision avoidance path 232, collision 230, collision avoidance path 242, see annotated FIG. 8A, below; para. 0055: “While conducting agricultural operations in the field 50, vehicles 10, labeled “E” and “F” by way of example, may be traveling toward a collision 230 due to upcoming travels in opposite directions on adjacent rows. Either vehicle E or vehicle F, or both vehicle E and vehicle F, or another equipment in the system, may detect and report this event condition. Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the collision 230. The base station may apply a predetermined, established hierarchy in which vehicle E is prioritized above vehicle F. Accordingly, the base station may provide a revised mission plan in which vehicle E will give way by adjusting the path of vehicle E to a collision avoidance path 232, based on the established hierarchy, to avoid the collision 230.”),
PNG
media_image1.png
462
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rusciolelli, annotated FIG. 8A
wherein the control system is configured to:
- by use of data indicative of driving status and position of the at least two vehicles (Rusciolelli, para. 0029: “The vehicle 10 includes a control system 20 for autonomously controlling the vehicle 10 and the agricultural machinery 14. The control system 20 may be in communication with numerous sensors and devices via a sensor bus 22. Sensors and devices may include, for example, a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or other position sensor 24 for accurately determining its location [i.e., by use of data indicative of…position of the at least two vehicles], a camera and/or microphone 26, proximity sensors 28 (such as radar) for detecting nearby objects, and vehicle sensors 30 for detecting various statuses of the vehicle 10 such as vehicle speed, engine speed, steering angle, pitch, roll and yaw angles, fuel level, oil pressure, tire pressures, and the like [i.e., by use of data indicative of driving status].”; para. 0031: “Referring now to FIG. 3, a diagram of an exemplar mission plan for execution in an agricultural field 50 using multiple vehicles 10 (such as vehicles “A,” “B,” “C” and “D” shown by way of example) [i.e., of the at least two vehicles] is provided in accordance with an aspect of the invention. A base station 52 may be in communication with the vehicles 10 via the long range antenna 16 when the vehicles 10 are far away from the base station 52. The base station 52 may also communicate or otherwise monitor the vehicles 10 via the short range antenna 18 with improved quality when the vehicles 10 are closer to the base station 52. The base station 52 may be where the majority of data used for mission planning and construction is stored.”),
predict if a meeting between the at least two vehicles along the road section will occur (Rusciolelli, para. 0008: “To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths [i.e., predict if a meeting between the at least two vehicles along the road section will occur], the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”), and
- when it is predicted that the meeting will occur, command at least one of the at least two vehicles to utilize the first driving behaviour to thereby allow and/or facilitate for the at least two vehicles to pass each other along the road section (Rusciolelli, FIG. 8A, see annotated FIG. 8A, above; para. 0008: “To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths [i.e., when it is predicted that the meeting will occur], the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles [i.e., command at least one of the at least two vehicles] involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision [i.e., utilize the first driving behaviour to thereby allow and/or facilitate for the at least two vehicles to pass each other along the road section], or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”),
wherein, when utilizing the second driving behaviour, navigational tolerances are allowed to be larger compared to when utilizing the first driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, para. 0008: “If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass [i.e., when utilizing the second driving behaviour, navigational tolerances are allowed to be larger compared to when utilizing the first driving behaviour]. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”).
Regarding claim 2, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 1,
wherein commanding at least one of the at least two vehicles to utilize the first driving behaviour comprises commanding at least one of the at least two vehicles to switch from utilizing the second driving behaviour to instead utilize the first driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B: see annotated FIG. 8A, above; para. 0008: “To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision [i.e., commanding at least one of the at least two vehicles to switch from utilizing the second driving behaviour to instead utilize the first driving behaviour], or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass.).
Regarding claim 3, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 2,
wherein switching from utilizing the second driving behaviour to instead utilize the first driving behaviour is configured to be performed at any position along the road section (Rusciolelli, para. 0008: “If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths [i.e., configured to be performed at any position along the road section], the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision [i.e., switching from utilizing the second driving behaviour to instead utilize the first driving behaviour].”; para. 0042: “One or more mission revisions 156 may be provided by the system from time to time to update one or more portions of the mission plan 150 (such as specific paths for specific vehicles) [i.e., configured to be performed at any position along the road section] and/or to replace all of the mission plan 150. Mission revisions 156 may typically be provided, for example, upon receiving an event condition being tracked in the event log 154. Mission revisions 156 may typically adjust paths of one or more vehicles 10 to resolve event conditions being monitored, though mission revisions 156 may be provided for other reasons.”).
Regarding claim 4, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 3, further configured to:
- estimate a first required transition path along the road section for switching between the second driving behaviour to the first driving behaviour, wherein the first required transition path is estimated by use of a vehicle model which is based on physical properties of the at least one vehicle (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0029: “The vehicle 10 includes a control system 20 for autonomously controlling the vehicle 10 and the agricultural machinery 14. The control system 20 may be in communication with numerous sensors and devices via a sensor bus 22. Sensors and devices may include, for example, a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or other position sensor 24 for accurately determining its location, a camera and/or microphone 26, proximity sensors 28 (such as radar) for detecting nearby objects, and vehicle sensors 30 for detecting various statuses of the vehicle 10 such as vehicle speed, engine speed, steering angle, pitch, roll and yaw angles, fuel level, oil pressure, tire pressures, and the like [i.e., the first required transition path is estimated by use of a vehicle model which is based on physical properties of the at least one vehicle].”; para. 0042: “One or more mission revisions 156 may be provided by the system from time to time to update one or more portions of the mission plan 150 (such as specific paths for specific vehicles) and/or to replace all of the mission plan 150. Mission revisions 156 may typically be provided, for example, upon receiving an event condition being tracked in the event log 154. Mission revisions 156 may typically adjust paths of one or more vehicles 10 to resolve event conditions being monitored, though mission revisions 156 may be provided for other reasons.”; para. 0049: “If an event condition has been reported, the process may proceed to block 188 in which a revised mission plan may be provided. The revised mission plan may adjust the path of one or more of the vehicles 10 to resolve the event condition [i.e., estimate a first required transition path along the road section for switching between the second driving behaviour to the first driving behaviour].”).
Regarding claim 5, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 2,
wherein switching from utilizing the second driving behaviour to instead utilize the first driving behaviour is configured to be performed at a predetermined position along the road section (Rusciolelli, para. 0042: “One or more mission revisions 156 may be provided by the system from time to time to update one or more portions of the mission plan 150 (such as specific paths for specific vehicles) and/or to replace all of the mission plan 150. Mission revisions 156 may typically be provided, for example, upon receiving an event condition being tracked in the event log 154 [i.e., configured to be performed at a predetermined position along the road section]. Mission revisions 156 may typically adjust paths of one or more vehicles 10 to resolve event conditions being monitored, though mission revisions 156 may be provided for other reasons.”; para. 0049: “If an event condition has been reported [i.e., configured to be performed at a predetermined position along the road section], the process may proceed to block 188 in which a revised mission plan may be provided. The revised mission plan may adjust the path of one or more of the vehicles 10 to resolve the event condition [i.e., switching from utilizing the second driving behaviour to instead utilize the first driving behaviour].”).
Regarding claim 6, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 1, further configured to:
- by use of the data indicative of driving status and position, determine when the meeting has occurred (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0008: “A collision could occur, for example, if vehicles are travelling in opposite directions on the same path or adjacent paths [i.e., by use of the data indicative of driving status and position]. This condition can be analyzed when a mission is constructed, and may also be run in real time as there may be problems which cause deviations from the initial mission plan. As the mission is updated and re-optimized due to deviations, the collision avoidance process may be executed again. To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization [i.e., determine when the meeting has occurred].”), and therefrom:
- command the at least one of the at least two vehicles to switch from utilizing the first driving behaviour to instead utilize the second driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0050: “To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision [i.e., command the at least one of the at least two vehicles to switch from utilizing the first driving behaviour to instead utilize the second driving behaviour], or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass. Having provided a mission revision to resolve the event condition and having verified collision avoidance, the process may return again to block 184 for receiving progress information, then decision block 186 for determining if an event condition has been reported.”).
Regarding claim 7, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 6,
wherein switching from utilizing the first driving behaviour to instead utilize the second driving behaviour is configured to be performed at any position along the road section (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0008: “If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths [i.e., configured to be performed at any position along the road section], the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision [i.e., switching from utilizing the first driving behaviour to instead utilize the second driving behaviour].”; para. 0042: “One or more mission revisions 156 may be provided by the system from time to time to update one or more portions of the mission plan 150 (such as specific paths for specific vehicles) [i.e., configured to be performed at any position along the road section] and/or to replace all of the mission plan 150. Mission revisions 156 may typically be provided, for example, upon receiving an event condition being tracked in the event log 154. Mission revisions 156 may typically adjust paths of one or more vehicles 10 to resolve event conditions being monitored, though mission revisions 156 may be provided for other reasons.”).
Regarding claim 8, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 7, further configured to:
- estimate a second required transition path along the road section for switching between the first driving behaviour to the second driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0008: “If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision [i.e., estimate a second required transition path along the road section for switching between the first driving behaviour to the second driving behaviour]. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”),
wherein the second required transition path is estimated by use of a vehicle model which is based on physical properties of the at least one vehicle (Rusciolelli, para. 0029: “The vehicle 10 includes a control system 20 for autonomously controlling the vehicle 10 and the agricultural machinery 14. The control system 20 may be in communication with numerous sensors and devices via a sensor bus 22. Sensors and devices may include, for example, a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or other position sensor 24 for accurately determining its location, a camera and/or microphone 26, proximity sensors 28 (such as radar) for detecting nearby objects, and vehicle sensors 30 for detecting various statuses of the vehicle 10 such as vehicle speed, engine speed, steering angle, pitch, roll and yaw angles, fuel level, oil pressure, tire pressures, and the like [i.e., the second required transition path is estimated by use of a vehicle model which is based on physical properties of the at least one vehicle].”).
Regarding claim 9, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 6,
wherein switching from utilizing the first driving behaviour to instead utilize the second driving behaviour is configured to be performed at a predetermined position along the road section (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0042: “One or more mission revisions 156 may be provided by the system from time to time to update one or more portions of the mission plan 150 (such as specific paths for specific vehicles) and/or to replace all of the mission plan 150. Mission revisions 156 may typically be provided, for example, upon receiving an event condition being tracked in the event log 154 [i.e., configured to be performed at a predetermined position along the road section]. Mission revisions 156 may typically adjust paths of one or more vehicles 10 to resolve event conditions being monitored, though mission revisions 156 may be provided for other reasons.”; para. 0049: “If an event condition has been reported [i.e., configured to be performed at a predetermined position along the road section], the process may proceed to block 188 in which a revised mission plan may be provided. The revised mission plan may adjust the path of one or more of the vehicles 10 to resolve the event condition [i.e., switching from utilizing the first driving behaviour to instead utilize the second driving behaviour].”).
Regarding claim 10, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 1,
wherein the second driving behavior for at least one of the at least two vehicles is a default driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, para. 0004: “The system may include providing a mission plan for autonomous vehicles to conduct agricultural operations, establishing a hierarchy for the vehicles [i.e., default driving behaviour], and monitoring for an event conditions indicating vehicles are traveling toward a collision with respect to one another. Upon receiving an event condition, the system may revise the mission plan to adjust a path of one of the vehicles based on the hierarchy in order to avoid the collision.”; para. 0007: “This hierarchy may be used for conflict resolution to determine which vehicle has the right of way and which vehicle will give way [i.e., the second driving behavior for at least one of the at least two vehicles is a default driving behaviour].”; para. 0008: “When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies [i.e., the second driving behavior for at least one of the at least two vehicles is a default driving behaviour], such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass.”).
Regarding claim 11, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 1,
wherein at least one of the first and second driving behaviours is associated with predetermined driving paths in the area (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 3 and 8A-8B; para. 0014: “…a method for conducting an agricultural operation including: (a) providing a mission plan for first and second autonomous vehicles, the mission plan including first and second paths for the first and second autonomous vehicles to travel while performing first and second agricultural operations, respectively [i.e., predetermined driving paths in the area]…(c) monitoring for an event condition reported by at least one of the first and second autonomous vehicles, the event condition being a detection of the first and second autonomous vehicles traveling toward a collision with respect to one another; and (d) upon receiving the event condition, providing a revised mission plan for the second autonomous vehicle in which the revised mission plan adjusts the second path of the second autonomous vehicle based on the hierarchy to avoid the collision [i.e., at least one of the first and second driving behaviours is associated with].”).
Regarding claim 12, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 11,
wherein the predetermined driving paths comprise predetermined switching paths between the first and second driving behaviours (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0055: “Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the collision 230. The base station may apply a predetermined, established hierarchy in which vehicle E is prioritized above vehicle F. Accordingly, the base station may provide a revised mission plan in which vehicle E will give way by adjusting the path of vehicle E to a collision avoidance path 232 [i.e., predetermined driving paths comprise predetermined switching paths between the first and second driving behaviours], based on the established hierarchy, to avoid the collision 230.”; para. 0056: “Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the obstacle 240 by adjusting the path of vehicle F to an obstacle avoidance path 242. However, the obstacle avoidance path 242 may cause vehicle F travel toward a collision 244 due to travels in opposite directions on adjacent rows. Consequently, the base station may include in the revised mission plan a collision avoidance path 246 for vehicle E [i.e., predetermined driving paths comprise predetermined switching paths between the first and second driving behaviours].”).
Regarding claim 13, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 11,
wherein at least the second driving behaviours for the at least two vehicles are associated with respective predetermined driving paths in opposite directions along the road section (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0055: “Referring now to FIG. 8A, an exemplar diagram illustrating a possible collision due to vehicles traveling in opposite directions in adjacent paths [i.e., associated with respective predetermined driving paths in opposite directions along the road section] with subsequent collision avoidance is provided in accordance with an aspect of the invention. While conducting agricultural operations in the field 50, vehicles 10, labeled “E” and “F” by way of example, may be traveling toward a collision 230 due to upcoming travels in opposite directions on adjacent rows. Either vehicle E or vehicle F, or both vehicle E and vehicle F, or another equipment in the system, may detect and report this event condition. Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the collision 230 [i.e., at least the second driving behaviours for the at least two vehicles].”), and
wherein the predetermined driving paths in opposite directions along the road section are at least partly overlapping driving paths so that a meeting of the at least two vehicles is not possible (Rusciolelli, para. 0055: “While conducting agricultural operations in the field 50, vehicles 10, labeled “E” and “F” by way of example, may be traveling toward a collision 230 due to upcoming travels in opposite directions on adjacent rows. Either vehicle E or vehicle F, or both vehicle E and vehicle F, or another equipment in the system, may detect and report this event condition. Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the collision 230 [i.e., predetermined driving paths in opposite directions along the road section are at least partly overlapping driving paths so that a meeting of the at least two vehicles is not possible].”).
Regarding claim 14, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 1,
further configured to determine a point in time and/or a position at which the at least one vehicle should initiate utilization of the first driving behaviour to thereby allow and/or facilitate for the at least two vehicles to pass each other along the road section (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 8A-8B; para. 0055: “Referring now to FIG. 8A, an exemplar diagram illustrating a possible collision due to vehicles traveling in opposite directions in adjacent paths with subsequent collision avoidance is provided in accordance with an aspect of the invention. While conducting agricultural operations in the field 50, vehicles 10, labeled “E” and “F” by way of example, may be traveling toward a collision 230 due to upcoming travels in opposite directions on adjacent rows. Either vehicle E or vehicle F, or both vehicle E and vehicle F, or another equipment in the system, may detect and report this event condition. Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the collision 230. The base station may apply a predetermined, established hierarchy in which vehicle E is prioritized above vehicle F. Accordingly, the base station may provide a revised mission plan in which vehicle E will give way by adjusting the path of vehicle E to a collision avoidance path 232, based on the established hierarchy, to avoid the collision 230.”),
wherein the point in time and/or the position is determined by comparing an estimated time period until the meeting will occur with a predetermined time period value (Rusciolelli, para. 0044: “The mission plan may be created based on the data structures 110 and the program 112 described above with respect to FIG. 4. This may be accomplished, for example, in a back office/base station by running a number of simulations to optimize the operation based on a set of weights, constraints and priorities (such as with respect to time [i.e., point in time and/or the position is determined by comparing an estimated time period until the meeting will occur with a predetermined time period value], available equipment, cost, and so forth) which may be set by an operator.”; para. 0045: “Next, in block 182, the mission plan is transmitted to the vehicles 10 required to complete the mission plan at the appropriate times [i.e., a predetermined time period value].”; para. 0051: “The base station may make this determination by applying one or more factors, including comparing progress information received from the vehicles 10 to the current mission plan [i.e., point in time and/or the position is determined by comparing an estimated time period until the meeting will occur with a predetermined time period value], monitoring a completion time and/or monitoring for mission reports from the vehicles 10.”).
Regarding claim 15, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 14,
wherein the predetermined time period value corresponds to a time period for switching between the second and the first driving behaviours (Rusciolelli, para. 0052: “Finally, in block 208, the mission plan may be communicated to the vehicles 10 and/or other equipment for mission execution and deployment of equipment at designated times [i.e., a time period for switching between the second and the first driving behaviours], as indicated by block 180 of FIG. 5.”; para. 0054: “However, in a preferred aspect, a highest probability mission revision is communicated quickly to affected vehicles 10 to ensure timely resolution of an event condition.”).
Regarding claim 16, Rusciolelli discloses The control system according to claim 1,
wherein the second driving behaviour is further associated with a higher driving speed in relation to the first driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, para. 0038: “The data structures 110 may also include data structures which may receive user input for generating mission plans (such as via the I/O terminal 106) including, for example, an operation selection field 140, weights 142 and constraints 144 [i.e., second driving behaviour is further associated with a higher driving speed in relation to the first driving behaviour].”; para. 0040: “The constraints 144 could include, for example: requiring a maximum speed while performing a field operation (such as harvesting, planting, tillage or unloading on-the-go) (“Speed 1”); requiring a maximum speed during headland turns (areas at each end of the field) (“Speed 2”); requiring a maximum harvest loss limit (“Loss”); requiring a maximum force exertion (“G1”) and/or maximum force duration (“G2”) for motion of the vehicles 10 (such as for management of a power hop or working on rough ground); requiring a minimum turning radius on headlands (“Turn”); requiring a maximum power/torque limit (“Power”); and so forth [i.e., second driving behaviour is further associated with a higher driving speed in relation to the first driving behaviour].”).
Regarding claim 17, Rusciolelli discloses An autonomous vehicle which is adapted to travel autonomously along driving paths in an area, and wherein the autonomous vehicle is adapted to utilize a first and a second driving behaviour when driving along a driving path (Rusciolelli, FIGs. 3, 8A-8B; para. 0004: “The present invention provides a system for conducting agricultural operations in a field [i.e., in an area] using autonomous vehicles [i.e., An autonomous vehicle] in which a collision avoidance mechanism may be provided. The system may include providing a mission plan for autonomous vehicles [i.e., which is adapted to travel autonomously along driving paths] to conduct agricultural operations, establishing a hierarchy for the vehicles, and monitoring for an event conditions indicating vehicles are traveling toward a collision with respect to one another. Upon receiving an event condition, the system may revise the mission plan to adjust a path of one of the vehicles [i.e., which is adapted to travel autonomously along driving paths] based on the hierarchy in order to avoid the collision.”; para. 0007: “Each vehicle which may be used in agricultural operations, or actively involved in agricultural operations, may be placed in a hierarchy (ranked). This hierarchy may be used for conflict resolution to determine which vehicle has the right of way and which vehicle will give way.”; para. 0008: “To avoid a collision, the collision avoidance process may analyze a current pass of each vehicle and a next planned pass of each vehicle, and may compare this analysis to the current pass and next planned passes of all vehicles performing operations in the same field. If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision [i.e., wherein the autonomous vehicle is adapted to utilize a first and a second driving behaviour when driving along a driving path]. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass [i.e., wherein the autonomous vehicle is adapted to utilize a first and a second driving behaviour when driving along a driving path]. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”),
wherein the first driving behaviour is associated with driving closer to an edge of a road section, in relation to the second driving behaviour, which is associated with driving further away from the edge and closer to a center line of the road section (Rusciolelli, FIG. 3: field 50, paths 60, first section 64, second section 66; FIGs. 8A-8B: paths 60, collision avoidance path 232, collision 230, collision avoidance path 242, see annotated FIG. 8A, above; para. 0055: “While conducting agricultural operations in the field 50, vehicles 10, labeled “E” and “F” by way of example, may be traveling toward a collision 230 due to upcoming travels in opposite directions on adjacent rows. Either vehicle E or vehicle F, or both vehicle E and vehicle F, or another equipment in the system, may detect and report this event condition. Upon receiving this event condition, the base station may provide a revised mission plan to avoid the collision 230. The base station may apply a predetermined, established hierarchy in which vehicle E is prioritized above vehicle F. Accordingly, the base station may provide a revised mission plan in which vehicle E will give way by adjusting the path of vehicle E to a collision avoidance path 232, based on the established hierarchy, to avoid the collision 230.”), and
wherein the autonomous vehicle is further adapted to receive driving commands from a control system according to claim 1 (Rusciolelli, para. 0029: “The vehicle 10 includes a control system 20 for autonomously controlling the vehicle 10 [i.e., the autonomous vehicle] and the agricultural machinery 14.”; para. 0030: “The drive system 36 may allow for general operation of the vehicle 10 by the control system 20 without the physical presence of a human operator, such as braking, accelerating, steering, shifting, and the like [i.e., adapted to receive driving commands from a control system according to claim 1].”),
wherein, when utilizing the second driving behaviour, navigational tolerances are allowed to be larger compared to when utilizing the first driving behaviour (Rusciolelli, para. 0008: “If it discovers that any vehicles may pass in opposite directions on the same or adjacent paths, the collision avoidance process may re-plan the path for one of the vehicles involved in the potential collision. When a potential collision is identified, a vehicle with a lower rank in the hierarchy may execute one of several possible avoidance strategies, such as moving to a new path/pass that will avoid the collision, or stopping and waiting at the end of a current pass [i.e., when utilizing the second driving behaviour, navigational tolerances are allowed to be larger compared to when utilizing the first driving behaviour]. If a collision avoidance maneuver is executed, it is likely that as a result the remaining portion of the mission may benefit from a re-construction and re-optimization.”).
Regarding claim 18, Rusciolelli discloses The autonomous vehicle according to claim 17,
further adapted to transmit data indicative of its driving status and position to the control system during driving (Rusciolelli, para. 0029: “The vehicle 10 includes a control system 20 for autonomously controlling the vehicle 10 and the agricultural machinery 14. The control system 20 may be in communication with numerous sensors and devices via a sensor bus 22. Sensors and devices may include, for example, a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or other position sensor 24 for accurately determining its location [i.e., adapted to transmit data indicative of its driving…position to the control system during driving], a camera and/or microphone 26, proximity sensors 28 (such as radar) for detecting nearby objects, and vehicle sensors 30 for detecting various statuses of the vehicle 10 such as vehicle speed, engine speed, steering angle, pitch, roll and yaw angles, fuel level, oil pressure, tire pressures, and the like [i.e., adapted to transmit data indicative of its driving status…to the control system during driving].”).
Regarding claim 21, Rusciolelli discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the method of claim 19 when said program code is run on a computer (Rusciolelli, para. 0015: “Another aspect may provide a system for managing an agricultural operation, the system including a processor executing a program stored in a non-transient medium operable to: (a) provide a mission plan for first and second autonomous vehicles, the mission plan including first and second paths for the first and second autonomous vehicles to travel while performing first and second agricultural operations, respectively…”).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20210009160-A1 (2021-01-14) | “A vehicle assistance system comprising a computer and a client device. The computer is configured to receive an identification reference and a current position of the first vehicle, provide a route of the first vehicle based on the identification reference and the current position of the first vehicle, receiving an identification reference and current position of a second vehicle, providing a route of the second vehicle based on the identification reference and the current position of the second vehicle, detect an expected location where the route of the first and second vehicle intersect or overlap, detect an expected time when the first and second vehicle intersect at the expected location, generate adaptation data based on the expected location and the expected time, the adaptation data representing an adaptation of a route parameter of the route of the first or second vehicle, sending the adaptation data to the client device.”
US-20210245780-A1 (2021-08-12) | “A system for vehicle navigation is provided. The system includes at least one processing circuitry programmed to receive via a data interface one or more images captured by one or more cameras representative of an environment of a vehicle, identify, based on analysis of the one or more images, at least one direction of at least one directional arrow on a road surface in the one or more images, determine a direction of travel for the vehicle based on the at least one direction of the at least one directional arrow on the road surface, determine at least one navigational action for the vehicle based on the determined direction of travel for the vehicle, and cause one or more actuator systems of the vehicle to implement the determined at least one navigational action for the vehicle.”
US-20200207371-A1 (2020-07-02) | “Methods, devices and systems enable controlling an autonomous vehicle by identifying vehicles that are within a threshold distance of the autonomous vehicle, determining an autonomous capability metric of each of the identified vehicles, and adjusting a driving parameter of the autonomous vehicle based on the determined autonomous capability metric of each of the identified vehicles. Embodiments may further include determining, based on the determined ACMs, whether one or more identified vehicles would provide an operational advantage to the autonomous vehicle in a cooperative driving engagement, and initiating a cooperative driving engagement with the one or more identified vehicles in response to determining that the one or more identified vehicles would provide an operational advantage to the autonomous vehicle in a cooperative driving engagement.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights