DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2022/060966, filed
on 04/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/18/2024 and 07/06/2026 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/25/2026. Applicants arguments, see page 7-11 filed on 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 and 23-24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Williams (WO 2020086557 A1) in view of Enthaler (US 20180072315 A1) further in view of Lyngbӓck (US 20200317477 A1) further in view of Robert (US 20200057451 A1) and further in view of Nagy (US 20180329428 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 18, 20-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Williams (WO 2020086557 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses A computer-implemented method for navigating an autonomous vehicle when driving in an area, the method comprising: (Williams Paragraph 0044: “The present disclosure describes a method and system for a reconfigurable robotic platform utilizing interchangeable service module or modules and adapted to engage in both autonomous and interactive maintenance and monitoring of a service area, the robotic platform configured to perform a wide variety of tasks and modes of operation utilizing the interchangeable service modules, such as including navigating through the service area utilizing sensors and guided through a stored service plan for the service area.”) (Williams Paragraph 00197: “The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software on a server, client, firewall, gateway, hub, router, or other such computer”) using a predetermined map of the area for the navigation, wherein the predetermined map comprises a plurality of connected segments, each segment defining a portion of a driving path for the autonomous vehicle to follow; in response to obtaining a mission instruction, navigating the autonomous vehicle from one point to another point in the area by finding a driving path defined by a number of connected segments of the plurality of connected segments, (Williams Paragraph 0054: “Referring to Fig. 52, once the inputs to the path planner 5104 have been made the mapping application 5102 may generate the service plan, perform quality checks, and communicate a service plan including the planned path 5202 to the robotic platform 100 for storage in memory. As shown in Fig. 52, the planned path 5202 for service area 140C may take into account the inputs to the path planner 5104”) (Williams Paragraph 0054: “In embodiments, once the planned path is stored on the robotic platform 100, the robotic platform 100 may re-use the planned path each time the service area is serviced, where dynamically generated alternative paths to go around unplanned obstacles may be generated on an as-needed basis as obstacles are encountered.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
416
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with the following predetermined rule for the autonomous vehicle: a predetermined navigation rule defining which sensor to use for the navigation in the at least one segment. (Williams Paragraph 0053: “That is, the robotic platform 100 may follow the planned route through the service area until it encounters an unexpected obstacle, at which time the robotic platform 100, through local processing 106, determines a route around the obstacle, but then rejoins the originally stored statically planned route once it is around the object.”) (Williams Paragraph 0087: “In accordance with various exemplary and non-limiting embodiments, there may be employed a suite of tools to create, maintain, and attribute the three-dimensional model of the environment. There are discussed above various means by which the sensors on the robotic platform 100 may be employed to generate such a model.”) (Williams Paragraph 0088: “Once attributed, the attributed model may be used as input to an algorithmic methodology for determining an efficient plan for traversing all required tasks. This methodology may consist of two parts, such as ordering the tasks to be performed and then describing the specific path plan to be taken to the different work areas and within the work areas. Once developed, the robotic platform 100 may commence to follow the plan in an autonomous or semi-autonomous manner to complete the tasks specified in the plan.”) (Williams Paragraph 00101: “As noted above, the robotic platform 100 may employ various rule-based algorithms to weight the relevance of differing sensors and to determine which sensors to use at any given moment. For example, it may be determined to weight, generally, the sonar data received from ultrasonic sensors 108 over the use of LIDAR. Another rule may indicate that, when the LIDAR is rendered deficient due, for example, to direct sunlight falling on the sensor, the robotic platform 100 should switch to more reliance the use of ultra-wide band signals. Over time, such rules may be altered via machine learning to more closely match the unique attributes of a specific environment. For example, a room that contains glass surfaces, such as aquariums, may negate the accurate operation of 3D LIDAR. In such instances, tasks performed by the robotic platform 100 in the performance of a plan that requires cleaning such a room may proceed according to a rule that notes the preferred use of ultra-wide band signal localization when in the room. Alternatively, such a rule may be embedded as an attribute of the area as specified in the three-dimensional model of the environment.”)
Regarding claim 8, Williams discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is varied over time. (Williams Paragraph 00101: “For example, it may be determined to weight, generally, the sonar data received from ultrasonic sensors 108 over the use of LIDAR. Another rule may indicate that, when the LIDAR is rendered deficient due, for example, to direct sunlight falling on the sensor, the robotic platform 100 should switch to more reliance the use of ultra-wide band signals. Over time, such rules may be altered via machine learning to more closely match the unique attributes of a specific environment. For example, a room that contains glass surfaces, such as aquariums, may negate the accurate operation of 3D LIDAR. In such instances, tasks performed by the robotic platform 100 in the performance of a plan that requires cleaning such a room may proceed according to a rule that notes the preferred use of ultra-wide band signal localization when in the room. Alternatively, such a rule may be embedded as an attribute of the area as specified in the three-dimensional model of the environment.”)
Regarding claim 9, Williams discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time. (Williams Paragraph 0100: “the robotic platform may employ rules based decision-making process to determine when and if one or more location data sources should be used. For example, the robotic platform 100 may operate in accordance with static or dynamically configurable default settings to determine when to incorporate different location data sources. For example, if, after a couple of seconds, the robotic platform 100 is unable to obtain a fix on its position using 3D LIDAR (or stereoscopic imaging sensors), it may switch to using ultra-wide band signals. The robotic platform 100 may subsequently switch back to using 3D LIDAR when it is feasible to do so.”) (Williams Paragraph 00101: “For example, it may be determined to weight, generally, the sonar data received from ultrasonic sensors 108 over the use of LIDAR. Another rule may indicate that, when the LIDAR is rendered deficient due, for example, to direct sunlight falling on the sensor, the robotic platform 100 should switch to more reliance the use of ultra-wide band signals. Over time, such rules may be altered via machine learning to more closely match the unique attributes of a specific environment. For example, a room that contains glass surfaces, such as aquariums, may negate the accurate operation of 3D LIDAR. In such instances, tasks performed by the robotic platform 100 in the performance of a plan that requires cleaning such a room may proceed according to a rule that notes the preferred use of ultra-wide band signal localization when in the room. Alternatively, such a rule may be embedded as an attribute of the area as specified in the three-dimensional model of the environment.”)
Regarding claim 10, Williams discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on at least one of ambient weather conditions and time of day during driving in the area. (Williams Paragraph 00101: “For example, it may be determined to weight, generally, the sonar data received from ultrasonic sensors 108 over the use of LIDAR. Another rule may indicate that, when the LIDAR is rendered deficient due, for example, to direct sunlight falling on the sensor, the robotic platform 100 should switch to more reliance the use of ultra-wide band signals. Over time, such rules may be altered via machine learning to more closely match the unique attributes of a specific environment. For example, a room that contains glass surfaces, such as aquariums, may negate the accurate operation of 3D LIDAR. In such instances, tasks performed by the robotic platform 100 in the performance of a plan that requires cleaning such a room may proceed according to a rule that notes the preferred use of ultra-wide band signal localization when in the room. Alternatively, such a rule may be embedded as an attribute of the area as specified in the three-dimensional model of the environment.”)
Regarding claim 11, Wiliams discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a change of at least one of ambient weather conditions and light conditions during driving in the area. (Williams Paragraph 00101: “For example, it may be determined to weight, generally, the sonar data received from ultrasonic sensors 108 over the use of LIDAR. Another rule may indicate that, when the LIDAR is rendered deficient due, for example, to direct sunlight falling on the sensor, the robotic platform 100 should switch to more reliance the use of ultra-wide band signals. Over time, such rules may be altered via machine learning to more closely match the unique attributes of a specific environment. For example, a room that contains glass surfaces, such as aquariums, may negate the accurate operation of 3D LIDAR. In such instances, tasks performed by the robotic platform 100 in the performance of a plan that requires cleaning such a room may proceed according to a rule that notes the preferred use of ultra-wide band signal localization when in the room. Alternatively, such a rule may be embedded as an attribute of the area as specified in the three-dimensional model of the environment.”)
Regarding claim 18, Williams discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of connected segments is adjusted over time, such as adjusted in dependence on a transformation of the area over time. (Williams Paragraph 0053: “As the robotic platform 100 encounters obstacles not in the stored map, it may enter a local planning mode to navigate around the object (e.g., dynamically processing an alternate path segment to go around the object) until the robotic platform 100 is able to return to the service plan and originally planned path. That is, the robotic platform 100 may follow the planned route through the service area until it encounters an unexpected obstacle, at which time the robotic platform 100, through local processing 106, determines a route around the obstacle, but then rejoins the originally stored statically planned route once it is around the object.”)
Regarding claim 20, Williams discloses A control unit for navigating an autonomous vehicle when driving in an area, wherein the control unit is further configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1. (Williams Paragraph 00207: “The methods and/or processes described above, and steps thereof, may be realized in hardware, software or any combination of hardware and software suitable for a particular application. The hardware may include a general-purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device or specific computing device or particular aspect or component of a specific computing device. The processes may be realized in one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, embedded microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device”)
Regarding claim 21, Williams discloses An autonomous vehicle further comprising means for navigating the vehicle in an area, and further comprising a control unit according to claim 20. (Williams Paragraph 0044: “The present disclosure describes a method and system for a reconfigurable robotic platform utilizing interchangeable service module or modules and adapted to engage in both autonomous and interactive maintenance and monitoring of a service area, the robotic platform configured to perform a wide variety of tasks and modes of operation utilizing the interchangeable service modules, such as including navigating through the service area utilizing sensors and guided through a stored service plan for the service area.”)
Regarding claim 23, Williams discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program further comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program product is run on a computer. (Williams Paragraph 00207: “The methods and/or processes described above, and steps thereof, may be realized in hardware, software or any combination of hardware and software suitable for a particular application. The hardware may include a general-purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device or specific computing device or particular aspect or component of a specific computing device.”) (Williams Paragraph 00207: “It may further be appreciated that one or more of the processes may be realized as a computer executable code capable of being executed on a machine-readable medium.”)
Regarding claim 24, Williams discloses A control system for controlling a fleet of autonomous vehicles which are driving in an area, wherein the autonomous vehicles are vehicles according to claim 21, and wherein the control system is configured to provide one or more mission instructions to each respective vehicle, wherein any one of the mission instructions is indicative of driving from one point to another point in the area. (Williams Paragraph 0051: “A service plan 128 may utilize a mapping facility 122, such as with capabilities to generate and utilize digital 2D maps 124 and 3D maps 126 for navigating through and providing planning services for service areas 140A-B.”) (Williams Paragraph 00129: “In embodiments, the robotic platform 100 may provide for coordination of a multiple service robots operating in proximity to one another, such as where multiple coordinated service robots act together to execute a service plan 128.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claim(s) 2-5, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (WO 2020086557 A1) and in view of (US 20180072315 A1) to Enthaler et al. (hereinafter Enthaler).
Regarding claim 2, Williams discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined access key for the autonomous vehicle, wherein the predetermined access key must be accessible for the autonomous vehicle in order to be allowed to drive in the at least one segment.
However, Enthaler teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined access key for the autonomous vehicle, wherein the predetermined access key must be accessible for the autonomous vehicle in order to be allowed to drive in the at least one segment. (Enthaler Paragraph 0026: “On the basis of this degree of user participation, it is thus possible to establish to what extent the user of the motor vehicle must participate in the driving operation in order for that route section to be approved for driving. For example, it may be provided for this purpose that the user of the motor vehicle must keep at least one hand on the steering wheel of the vehicle and/or must leave one hand on the steering wheel only for defined intervals of time, or requirements pertaining to the minimum amount of attention required of the user may be incorporated into the required degree of user participation, so that, for example, the user is not allowed to sleep while driving on that route section in the autonomous operating mode. In particular it is possible to provide that at least one user must be present in the motor vehicle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined access key for the autonomous vehicle, wherein the predetermined access key must be accessible for the autonomous vehicle in order to be allowed to drive in the at least one segment taught by Enthaler. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method in comparison with this prior art, in which a simplified update of the route sections as well as flexible approval and/or restriction of individual route sections is/are possible. In order to solve the problem of locally limited regions, in which operation of motor vehicles in such an autonomous operating mode is undesirable and/or prohibited. [Enthaler Paragraph 0004 and 0011]
Regarding claim 3, Williams in view of Enthaler teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is varied over time.
However, Enthaler teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is varied over time. (Enthaler Paragraph 0031: “Furthermore, the parameter may relate to temporary information, which in turn relates to a route section. This may be a temporary construction site, for example, and/or a temporary prohibition against driving on the respective route section in the autonomous operating mode.”) (Enthaler Paragraph 0033: “In addition, the invention relates to a motor vehicle comprising a navigation device with route sections stored in the memory and a control device for longitudinal and/or transverse guidance of the motor vehicle in an autonomous operating mode, wherein at least one parameter which defines whether the route section has been approved for operation of the motor vehicle in the autonomous operating mode is assigned to at least one route section.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is varied over time taught by Enthaler. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method in comparison with this prior art, in which a simplified update of the route sections as well as flexible approval and/or restriction of individual route sections is/are possible. In order to solve the problem of locally limited regions, in which operation of motor vehicles in such an autonomous operating mode is undesirable and/or prohibited. [Enthaler Paragraph 0004 and 0011]
Regarding claim 4, Williams in view of Enthaler teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on if another vehicle is currently driving in the at least one segment.
However, Enthaler teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on if another vehicle is currently driving in the at least one segment. (Enthaler Paragraph 0031: “The at least one parameter may relate to at least one legal provision regarding traffic and/or one item of temporary information pertaining to a route section and/or a regulation regarding driver participation in control of the longitudinal and/or transverse guidance of a motor vehicle and/or a degree of user participation. This has the advantage that traffic regulations pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle in autonomous operating mode can also be queried by a server, so that the control device and/or the navigation device of the motor vehicle is/are always at the updated level.”) (Note: The traffic flow depends on the vehicles in the road segment)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on if another vehicle is currently driving in the at least one segment taught by Enthaler. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method in comparison with this prior art, in which a simplified update of the route sections as well as flexible approval and/or restriction of individual route sections is/are possible. In order to solve the problem of locally limited regions, in which operation of motor vehicles in such an autonomous operating mode is undesirable and/or prohibited. [Enthaler Paragraph 0004 and 0011]
Regarding claim 5, Williams in view of Enthaler teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on the type and/or characteristics of the autonomous vehicle.
However, Enthaler teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on the type and/or characteristics of the autonomous vehicle. (Enthaler Paragraph 0022: “Depending on the parameter associated with the respective route section, which is not approved for driving in an autonomous operating mode, it is possible to provide that only operation of the motor vehicle in the autonomous operating mode is not approved. An assistance mode, in which the control device supports the user of the motor vehicle in the longitudinal and/or transverse guidance of the motor vehicle may thus be permitted, depending on the respective parameter assigned to the section of road. If this is the case, a warning indicating to the user the imminent restricted route section, which is not approved for driving in the autonomous operating mode and also announcing the switching of the control device from the autonomous operating mode to the assistance mode can be output to the user of the motor vehicle before or upon reaching the respective route section. The user is then informed about the fact that he must assume at least partial control of the motor vehicle. It is also possible to provide here that a choice is offered to the user, who can then decide whether to select the assistance mode or one of the other alternatives for action.”) (Note: Assistance or autonomous mode are the type of autonomous vehicle)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on the type and/or characteristics of the autonomous vehicle taught by Enthaler. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method in comparison with this prior art, in which a simplified update of the route sections as well as flexible approval and/or restriction of individual route sections is/are possible. In order to solve the problem of locally limited regions, in which operation of motor vehicles in such an autonomous operating mode is undesirable and/or prohibited. [Enthaler Paragraph 0004 and 0011]
Regarding claim 7, Williams in view of Enthaler teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 2, wherein at least one segment which is associated with a predetermined access key is a single lane driving path in which vehicles are allowed to be driven in opposite directions, and wherein the predetermined access key is only accessible to the autonomous vehicle when the single lane driving path is at least free from other vehicles driving in an opposite direction with respect to the autonomous vehicle.
However, Enthaler teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein at least one segment which is associated with a predetermined access key is a single lane driving path in which vehicles are allowed to be driven in opposite directions, and wherein the predetermined access key is only accessible to the autonomous vehicle when the single lane driving path is at least free from other vehicles driving in an opposite direction with respect to the autonomous vehicle. (Enthaler Paragraph 0051: “FIG. 3 shows the motor vehicle 1 from FIG. 1 in a second traffic situation. The motor vehicle 1 in FIG. 3 is on a route section 12 where driving in the autonomous operating mode is approved. This route section 12 is adjacent to a route section 13, where driving in the autonomous operating mode is not approved. At a distance 14 between the motor vehicle 1 and the given route section 13, a warning for the user of the motor vehicle 1 is displayed on the display device 8 in the manner described above. If the user of the motor vehicle 1 does not respond to this warning, the motor vehicle 1 is, moved by the control device 3 into a parking area 15 on route section 12, outside of route section 13, based on a corresponding control.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
365
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 2, wherein at least one segment which is associated with a predetermined access key is a single lane driving path in which vehicles are allowed to be driven in opposite directions, and wherein the predetermined access key is only accessible to the autonomous vehicle when the single lane driving path is at least free from other vehicles driving in an opposite direction with respect to the autonomous vehicle taught by Enthaler. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method in comparison with this prior art, in which a simplified update of the route sections as well as flexible approval and/or restriction of individual route sections is/are possible. In order to solve the problem of locally limited regions, in which operation of motor vehicles in such an autonomous operating mode is undesirable and/or prohibited. [Enthaler Paragraph 0004 and 0011]
Regarding claim 19, Williams discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined keys and/or rules are assigned to different segments of the plurality of segments.
However, Enthaler teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined keys and/or rules are assigned to different segments of the plurality of segments. (Enthaler Paragraph 0053: “FIG. 4 shows the motor vehicle 1 on a route section 16 at a distance 17 from the route section 18 which connected to the route section 16. Driving in autonomous operating mode is approved for the route section 16 but driving in the autonomous operating mode is not approved for the route section 18. The route section 18 is in turn connected to a route section 19 where driving in autonomous operating mode is again approved.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
181
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined keys and/or rules are assigned to different segments of the plurality of segments taught by Enthaler. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method in comparison with this prior art, in which a simplified update of the route sections as well as flexible approval and/or restriction of individual route sections is/are possible. In order to solve the problem of locally limited regions, in which operation of motor vehicles in such an autonomous operating mode is undesirable and/or prohibited. [Enthaler Paragraph 0004 and 0011]
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (WO 2020086557 A1) in view of Enthaler (US 20180072315 A1) and further in view of (US 20200317477 A1) to Lyngbӓck et al. (hereinafter Lyngbӓck).
Regarding claim 6, Williams in view of Enthaler teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Williams in view of Enthaler does not teach The method according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the autonomous vehicle are related to at least one of a weight of the vehicle, a weight of a load carried by the vehicle and a type of load carried by the vehicle.
However, Lyngbӓck does teach The method according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the autonomous vehicle are related to at least one of a weight of the vehicle, a weight of a load carried by the vehicle and a type of load carried by the vehicle. (Lyngbӓck Paragraph 0072: “The vehicle data 14 describes the current characteristics of the vehicle and comprises one or many of the number of wheels in contact with the ground, the location of wheels in contact with the ground relative to the vehicle, the weight of the vehicle, which may be the total weight including load”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Enthaler to include The method according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the autonomous vehicle are related to at least one of a weight of the vehicle, a weight of a load carried by the vehicle and a type of load carried by the vehicle taught by Lyngbӓck. This would have been for the benefit to achieve an improved vehicle, working equipment, and method where the improvement lies in that the safety of the work performed by the vehicle and working equipment is less dependent upon the experience and knowledge of the driver, and in particular to achieve an improved vehicle and method where parameters of the surroundings around the vehicle, and of the vehicle, are taken into account when controlling the vehicle, and in particular with regard to the final stages of a loading procedure. [Lyngbӓck Paragraph 0014]
8. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (WO 2020086557 A1) and in view of (US 20200057451 A1) to Robert et al. (hereinafter Robert).
Regarding claim 12, Williams discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above,
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on an accessibility to a navigation satellite system in the at least one segment.
However, Robert does teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on an accessibility to a navigation satellite system in the at least one segment. (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on an accessibility to a navigation satellite system in the at least one segment taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to propose a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
9. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (WO 2020086557 A1) and in view of Lyngbӓck (US 20200317477 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Williams discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment.
However, Lyngbӓck teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment. (Lyngbӓck Paragraph 0060: “In one variation the ambient condition data 10 comprises at least a ground surface parameter, e.g. a friction value, of the ground surface at the current position of the vehicle 2, and wherein one path following rule comprises using said ground surface parameter.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment taught by Lyngbӓck. This would have been for the benefit to achieve an improved vehicle, working equipment, and method where the improvement lies in that the safety of the work performed by the vehicle and working equipment is less dependent upon the experience and knowledge of the driver, and in particular to achieve an improved vehicle and method where parameters of the surroundings around the vehicle, and of the vehicle, are taken into account when controlling the vehicle, and in particular with regard to the final stages of a loading procedure. [Lyngbӓck Paragraph 0014]
10. Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (WO 2020086557 A1) and in view of (US 20180329428 A1) to Nagy et al. (hereinafter Nagy).
Regarding claim 14, Williams discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined trigger rule to trigger a work task, such as a loading or unloading sequence, for the autonomous vehicle at a point in time when the autonomous vehicle is driving in the at least one segment.
However, Nagy does teach The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined trigger rule to trigger a work task, such as a loading or unloading sequence, for the autonomous vehicle at a point in time when the autonomous vehicle is driving in the at least one segment. (Nagy Paragraph 0062: “The computing device(s) 106 can also include a route determiner 122 configured to determine travel routes for the autonomous vehicle 102 based at least in part on the map data 118 evaluated relative to the constraint data 120. In some examples, travel routes can be determined by route determiner 122 in accordance with a navigational objective (e.g., traveling to a destination location to perform a service such as rideshare service, delivery service, courier service, etc.). Route determiner 122 can evaluate the map data 118 in association with the constraint data 120 to determine which travel way portions are included and/or which travel way portions are excluded.”) (Nagy Paragraph 0119: “For example, the remote computing device 950 can manage an on-demand transport service that routes the autonomous vehicles 990 throughout the given region based on user demands (e.g., for freight delivery, food delivery, passenger transport, etc.).”) (Note: Delivery=unloading)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined trigger rule to trigger a work task, such as a loading or unloading sequence, for the autonomous vehicle at a point in time when the autonomous vehicle is driving in the at least one segment taught by Nagy. This would have been for the benefit to access one or more computing devices on-board an autonomous vehicle, map data descriptive of the identity and location of different travel ways within the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle. Thus, in order to solve the problem of map data not always being updated to reflect changing availability of different travel ways. [Nagy Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
Regarding claim 15, Williams in view of Nagy teaches claim 14, accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 14, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is varied over time.
However, Nagy does teach The method according to claim 14, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is varied over time. (Nagy Paragraph 0120: “For example, the remote computing device 950 or other transportation coordination system can provide the autonomous vehicles 990 with a sequence of destinations for making pick-ups and drop-offs. The on-board computing systems of the autonomous vehicles 990 can generate respective route plans to autonomously drive to a next destination. Based on the constraint file(s), comprising the traffic flow constraint information, received from the remote computing device 950, the autonomous vehicles 990 can inherently avoid the exclusion zones or forbidden road segments. Accordingly, the remote computing device 950 can leverage the live-traffic constraints and planned closures indicated by the traffic monitoring resources 905 and central planning resources 910 to create exclusion zones within the given region in which the autonomous vehicles 990 operate.”) (Note: When the trigger rules is determined the routes changes of where to go to unload/load goods based on traffic constraints over time thus changing the routes of the vehicle to unload/load goods) (Nagy Paragraph 0121: “FIG. 14 depicts an example flow chart of a method (1000) of providing up-to-date route constraint information to autonomous vehicles according to example embodiments of the present disclosure.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 14, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is varied over time taught by Nagy. This would have been for the benefit to access one or more computing devices on-board an autonomous vehicle, map data descriptive of the identity and location of different travel ways within the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle. Thus, in order to solve the problem of map data not always being updated to reflect changing availability of different travel ways. [Nagy Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
Regarding claim 16, Williams in view of Nagy teaches claim 15, accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 15, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time.
However, Nagy teaches The method according to claim 15, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time. (Nagy Paragraph 0120: “For example, the remote computing device 950 or other transportation coordination system can provide the autonomous vehicles 990 with a sequence of destinations for making pick-ups and drop-offs. The on-board computing systems of the autonomous vehicles 990 can generate respective route plans to autonomously drive to a next destination. Based on the constraint file(s), comprising the traffic flow constraint information, received from the remote computing device 950, the autonomous vehicles 990 can inherently avoid the exclusion zones or forbidden road segments. Accordingly, the remote computing device 950 can leverage the live-traffic constraints and planned closures indicated by the traffic monitoring resources 905 and central planning resources 910 to create exclusion zones within the given region in which the autonomous vehicles 990 operate.”) (Nagy Paragraph 0121: “FIG. 14 depicts an example flow chart of a method (1000) of providing up-to-date route constraint information to autonomous vehicles according to example embodiments of the present disclosure.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 15, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time taught by Nagy. This would have been for the benefit to access one or more computing devices on-board an autonomous vehicle, map data descriptive of the identity and location of different travel ways within the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle. Thus, in order to solve the problem of map data not always being updated to reflect changing availability of different travel ways. [Nagy Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
Regarding claim 17, Williams in view of Nagy teaches claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated above.
Williams does not disclose The method according to claim 16, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on the transformation of the area over time in that a loading position or an unloading position for the autonomous vehicle in the at least one segment is varied in dependence on the transformation of the area
However, Nagy teaches The method according to claim 16, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on the transformation of the area over time in that a loading position or an unloading position for the autonomous vehicle in the at least one segment is varied in dependence on the transformation of the area. (Nagy Paragraph 0099: “In some examples, travel routes determined at (610) can be determined in accordance with a navigational objective (e.g., traveling to a destination location to perform a service such as rideshare service, delivery service, courier service, etc.). In some examples, travel routes determined at (610) can be determined to accomplish the navigational objective using travel way portions that are permitted and/or preferred as opposed to forbidden and/or not preferred based on map data evaluated in association with constraint data. In some implementations, for example, it may be desirable to forbid or not prefer specific areas or specific travel ways within an area due to events such as a traffic accident, street fair, construction, or the like. In other implementations, for example, it may be desirable to permit or prefer specific areas or specific travel ways within an area for navigation by particular autonomous vehicles that are assigned to perform services in a given area, thus affording efficient distribution of fleet resources.”) (Note: If the segment is free from obstruction when traveling to a destination once reaching the destination the vehicle can load or unload)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to include The method according to claim 16, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on the transformation of the area over time in that a loading position or an unloading position for the autonomous vehicle in the at least one segment is varied in dependence on the transformation of the area taught by Nagy. This would have been for the benefit to access one or more computing devices on-board an autonomous vehicle, map data descriptive of the identity and location of different travel ways within the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle. Thus, in order to solve the problem of map data not always being updated to reflect changing availability of different travel ways. [Nagy Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights