Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts as follows:
As noted in the Action, Kakkar does not disclose reducing speed limitation in response to the separation distance subsequently being greater than the distance threshold. The Examiner has relied on the reference Ren (US 2020/0219401 A1) for such teachings.
The Examiner contends that Ren teaches such features, for example in the passage "The vehicle is prevented from moving, except away from geofence 602 or must wait until geofence 602 moves away."
In amended claim 1, it is respectfully submitted that the speed limitation is alleviated any time the distance is greater than the threshold, not merely when the vehicle is moving away from the obstacle. As presently claimed, the vehicle could be moving parallel to the boundary or obstacle and have the speed limitation removed if the vehicle remains at a sufficient distance.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that neither Kakkar nor Ren, not any combination thereof, provide a teaching for claim 1 as amended herein. Claim 1 is believed to be patentable for at least this reason.
Claims 2 - 4, 8 - 13, 15, and 16, depending from claim 1, recite additional features of the method and are therefore believed to be patentable for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 1 and for the additional features recited therein.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to reference Ren (US 2020/0219401 A1), Examiner respectfully asserts that the teachings of Ren, in combination with Kakkar (US 2024/0147888 A1), renders obvious the present claimed invention. Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0019, 0057, & 0058 wherein the projection footprint of the vehicle may be compared to a defined boundary in the environment to determine if an intersection with the boundary will occur at a future point, wherein the vehicle may be controlled to apply a reduced maximum speed to the travel of the vehicle as the vehicle approaches future positions and orientations, such that the vehicle may be stopped prior to the intersection of the vehicle with the boundary. As noted by Applicant above, and as acknowledged by the Examiner, Kakkar however appears to be silent regarding a subsequent separation distance being determined, and used to alleviate the restriction.
Ren however teaches in at least Paragraph 0060, as acknowledged by the Applicant above, wherein “[t]he vehicle is prevented from moving, except away from geofence or must wait until geofence moves away.” Examiner respectfully asserts that this specifically teaches wherein following the initiation of a movement restriction, determining a separation distance after the movement restriction is initiated [i.e. determining if the geofence moves away/increases distance from the vehicle] and allowing the vehicle to move if the distance increases [i.e. and in response to the subsequent separation distance being greater than the distance threshold, reducing limitation of the speed of the vehicle]. Further, while the teachings of Ren appear to stop or slow the vehicle with respect to the current position of the vehicle, the allowance of movement subsequent to the stopping of the vehicle may take place based on the vehicle traveling away from the geofence, that is to say, based on the predicted trajectory of the vehicle similarly to as in Kakkar. This appears, in the view of the Examiner, to anticipate the present claimed invention under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in which, when the distance between a geofence and the trajectory position is subsequently increased [or anticipated to based on a predicted trajectory], the limitation on speed is reduced or eliminated. Thus, Applicant Arguments with respect to Claims 1 – 13 & 15 – 16 are not persuasive.
Further, regarding Claim 17:
It is respectfully submitted that none of the prior art of record, including Kakkar and Zebiak, teaches determining the predicted trajectory path based on user input, such as user control of the vehicle. As presently amended, the method includes predicting the trajectory based on user input (such as throttle use by the user), rather than simply speed, acceleration, or heading for example.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that neither Kakkar nor Zebiak, not any combination thereof, provide a teaching for claim 17 as amended herein. Claim 17 is believed to be patentable for at least this reason.
Claims 18 - 20, depending from claim 17, recite additional features of the method and are therefore believed to be patentable for the same reasons recited above with respect to claim 17 and for the additional features recited therein.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, submitting that reference Kakkar discloses the relevant claim limitations. Specifically, Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053, 0071, & 0088 wherein a vehicle may operate semi-autonomously, receiving inputs from a human operator, including throttle commands, which may be used to determine the projection footprint of the vehicle and connected implement as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0085 & 0086. While the vehicle is disclosed to operate in an autonomous manner, the semi-autonomous embodiment in which the operator provides throttle inputs is respectfully submitted by the Examiner to anticipate the determination of a predicted trajectory path based on user input, and thus Applicant arguments with respect to Claims 17 – 20 are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 - 4, 8 - 13, 15, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakkar (US 2024/0147888 A1) in view of Ren (US 2020/0219401 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kakkar discloses: A method for controlling a vehicle relative to a border within a geographic region, (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraph 0002 a method of maintaining an autonomous vehicle within geographic boundaries, including the generation of a footprint of the vehicle, projecting the vehicle projection path, and limiting the speed of the vehicle based on an intersection of the projected footprint with a geofence boundary [i.e. a method for controlling a vehicle relative to a border within a geographic region])
the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle, the method comprising: (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0008 & 0091 wherein the method may be implemented using one or more processors associated with the vehicle connected with a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium containing instructions to implement the steps of the method [i.e. the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle])
determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein based at least in part on a current position, heading, and steering state, a predicted path for a vehicle may be determined, including a projection footprint of the vehicle as it traverses said path [i.e. determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle]. At least Figure 4 of Kakkar, below, depicts an example of such, wherein the vehicle’s predicted path is represented by Elements 412-1 and 412-2, and the projection footprint is depicted by Element 416)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a trajectory position of the vehicle, the trajectory position of the vehicle corresponding to a point of interest related to a distance between the vehicle and the border on the predicted trajectory path; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052 wherein the vehicle may operate in an environment constrained by boundaries [i.e. a border, Elements 410 of Figure 4, above]. At least Paragraphs 0054 – 0056 of Kakkar further disclose wherein future positions and orientations of a vehicle may be determined along a path [i.e. determining a trajectory position of the vehicle], with the projection footprint of the point(s) along the path being compared to the boundaries of the geofenced area to determine if any position/orientation of the vehicle along the predicted future path will intersect with the boundary [i.e. the trajectory position of the vehicle corresponding to a point of interest related to a distance between the vehicle and the border on the predicted trajectory path])
determining a separation distance between the border and the trajectory position; and (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0019, 0057, & 0058 wherein the projection footprint of the vehicle may be compared to the defined boundary to determine if an intersection with the boundary will occur at a future point [i.e. determining a separation distance between the border and the trajectory position], as well as determining an intermediate position and orientation a sufficient distance from the boundary where a reduced maximum speed should be applied)
in response to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold, limiting a speed of the vehicle (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0058 wherein the vehicle may be controlled to apply a reduced maximum speed to the travel of the vehicle as the vehicle approaches future positions and orientations, such that the vehicle may achieve a maximum speed [such as a full stop] prior to the intersection of the vehicle with the boundary [i.e. controlling a speed of the vehicle responsive to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold]. As depicted in Figure 4, above, this may include in an example controlling the speed of the vehicle to be 15 mph at intermediate point 420-2, which is a specified distance [i.e. a distance threshold] from the boundary, and controlling the speed of the vehicle to be 0 mph just prior to the vehicle intersecting the boundary at point 420-3/432 [i.e. the intersection denotes a distance threshold of above zero separation distance])
Kakkar however appears to be silent regarding:
subsequent to limiting the speed of the vehicle, determining a subsequent separation distance between the border and the trajectory position; and in response to the subsequent separation distance being greater than the distance threshold, reducing limitation of the speed of the vehicle.
However Ren teaches wherein subsequent to controlling a vehicle based on a distance to a geofence, a vehicle may be controlled to slow down and stop, with the restriction being removed if the distance between the vehicle and geofence subsequently increases.
subsequent to limiting the speed of the vehicle, determining a subsequent separation distance between the border and the trajectory position; and in response to the subsequent separation distance being greater than the distance threshold, reducing limitation of the speed of the vehicle. (However Ren teaches in at least Paragraphs 0058 – 0061 wherein a vehicle may approach a geofence, be proportionally reduced in speed as the distance to the geofence decreases, and be caused to stop completely at a predetermined distance from the geofence, with the vehicle being prevented from moving except away from geofence until the geofence moves away from the vehicle [i.e. subsequent to limiting the speed of the vehicle, in response to the separation distance being greater than the distance threshold, reducing the limitation of the speed of the vehicle])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kakkar by incorporating the removal of a previously imposed vehicle speed restriction when the distance between the vehicle and geofence increases as taught by Ren.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ren in at least Paragraph 0056, the potential for the vehicle to cause harm to an area or persons protected by the geofence may be substantially reduced, improving the safety of the vehicle while being minimally restrictive to the control of the vehicle int eh environment.
Regarding Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the speed of the vehicle is limited such that when the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, the speed of the vehicle is equal to a speed limit which is based at least in part on the separation distance.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0059 wherein a reduced maximum speed may be applied to a vehicle as the vehicle approaches a future position and orientation [i.e. the speed of the vehicle is limited], such that as the vehicle reaches specified intermediate or intersection position(s), a specified maximum speed [such as a full stop] is achieved [i.e. such that when the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, the speed of the vehicle is equal to a speed limit which is based at least in part on the separation distance].
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein limiting the speed of the vehicle increases as the separation distance decreases.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0059 wherein a reduced maximum speed may be applied to a vehicle as the vehicle approaches a future position and orientation, such that as the vehicle reaches specified intermediate or intersection position(s), a specified maximum speed [such as a full stop] is achieved. This may include continuously reducing the maximum speed of the vehicle as the future position is approached [i.e. limiting the speed of the vehicle increases as the separation distance decreases].
Regarding Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein: determining the predicted trajectory path, determining the trajectory position, and determining the separation distance are recursive and occurs at at least one sampling rate.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0085 & 0086 wherein the two-dimensional projection footprint of the vehicle, which represents the horizontal space the two-dimensional footprint will occupy in the real world as the vehicle travels from its current position and orientation to a future position and orientation [i.e. the predicted trajectory path] is re-generated at regular intervals, including at a rate of several times per second [0.5 – 5 Hz as examples] to maintain safety [i.e. determining the predicted trajectory path, determining the trajectory position, and determining the separation distance are recursive and occur at at least one sampling rate].
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a signal from at least one sensor, the vehicle including the at least one sensor for detecting at least one of: a current orientation of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, a user input, and a current position of the vehicle; and wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises: using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including location and motion sensors, such as GPS systems, accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes to determine the heading of the vehicle [i.e. at least one sensor for detecting a current orientation of the vehicle]. Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0037 & 0040 – 0043 wherein the projection footprint of a vehicle may be determined based on the predicted path of the vehicle, which may be determined from a heading and current steering angle of the vehicle [i.e. wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises: using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor].
Regarding Claim 9:
The method of claim 8, wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises determining at least one of: a magnitude of steering the vehicle, a rate of change of steering the vehicle, a magnitude of throttle, a rate of change of throttle, a magnitude of braking, and a rate of change of braking.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0040 – 0044 & 0074 wherein a current steering angle of the vehicle [i.e. a magnitude of steering the vehicle] is used to determine the predicted path of the vehicle [i.e. determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises determining a magnitude of steering the vehicle].
Regarding Claim 10:
The method of claim 8, wherein receiving the signal from the at least one sensor comprises receiving the signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a steering angle sensor, a user input sensor, and a global positioning system.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including location and motion sensors, such as GPS systems, accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes [i.e. receiving a signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and a global positioning system].
Regarding Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an input regarding the border of the geographic region.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0067 & 0068 wherein a user terminal may be configured to receive operator inputs, including geofence boundaries, which may be expressed as one or more geographic coordinates [i.e. receiving an input regarding the border of the geographic region].
Regarding Claim 12:
The method of claim 11, further comprising defining, by a rider of the vehicle, the border of the geographic region, and wherein receiving the input includes receiving the defined border.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0067 & 0068 wherein a user terminal may be configured to receive operator inputs, including geofence boundaries, which may be expressed as one or more geographic coordinates [i.e. defining, by a rider of the vehicle, the border of the geographic region, by receiving an input including the defined border].
Regarding Claim 13:
The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting the speed of the vehicle.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0059 wherein a reduced maximum speed may be applied to a vehicle as the vehicle approaches a future position and orientation [i.e. controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting the speed of the vehicle], such that as the vehicle reaches specified intermediate or intersection position(s), a specified maximum speed [such as a full stop] is achieved.
Regarding Claim 15:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving at least one speed limit.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0059 wherein a reduced maximum speed may be applied to a vehicle as the vehicle approaches a future position and orientation [i.e. controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises receiving at least one speed limit], such that as the vehicle reaches specified intermediate or intersection position(s), a specified maximum speed [such as a full stop] is achieved. Kakkar further discloses in at least Paragraph 0070 wherein operating limits associated with the vehicle, including a maximum speed, are received at a user terminal.
Regarding Claim 16:
The method of claim 1, further comprising triggering at least one of a visual and audible alert to a driver to indicate that the vehicle speed is being limited.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraph 0078 wherein one or more evasive or precautionary actions may be displayed to an operator of the vehicle through a display, said precautionary actions including a limitation of the maximum speed of the vehicle as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0079 of Kakkar [i.e. a visual alert is transmitted to a driver to indicate that the vehicle speed is being limited].
Claim(s) 5 - 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakkar (US 2024/0147888 A1) in view of Ren (US 2020/0219401 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zebiak (US 2020/0398810 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position; and in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, limiting the speed of the vehicle such that when the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, the speed of the vehicle is less than the speed threshold; and wherein: the speed threshold is based on a speed limit, and the speed limit is based at least in part on the separation distance.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0059 wherein a reduced maximum speed may be applied to a vehicle as the vehicle approaches a future position and orientation [i.e. controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting the speed of the vehicle], such that as the vehicle reaches specified intermediate or intersection position(s), a specified maximum speed [such as a full stop] is achieved [i.e. such that when the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, the speed of the vehicle is equal to a speed limit which is based at least in part on the separation distance]. Kakkar however appears to be silent regarding determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position and in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the vehicle.
However Zebiak teaches in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0052 wherein projected speeds of a vehicle at a plurality of upcoming locations are determined based on an equation including he velocity of the vehicle and projected elevation changes for the vehicle [i.e. determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position]. At least Paragraph 0053 of Zebiak further discloses wherein the projected speeds at each upcoming location are compared to a maximum allowed speed to determine if any of the projected upcoming speeds are in violation of the maximum allowed speed. If so, Zebiak discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0085 wherein the vehicle controller controls the propulsion system to adjust the commanded axle torque to maintain the actual speed of the vehicle within the allowed speed range at each of the predetermined upcoming locations [i.e. in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kakkar by incorporating the determination of vehicle speed at a trajectory position and comparison of said speed to a maximum speed threshold to determine if vehicle control should be performed as taught by Zebiak.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zebiak in at least Paragraphs 0004, 0052, & 0053, the vehicle may be prevented from violating a maximum speed at a future trajectory point by preemptive control, improving the safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, further comprising: receiving a signal from at least one sensor, the vehicle including the at least one sensor for detecting at least one of: a current orientation of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, a user input and a current position of the vehicle; and wherein determining the trajectory speed of the vehicle comprises: using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor to determine the trajectory speed.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including location and motion sensors, such as GPS systems, accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes [i.e. at least one sensor]. Kakkar however appears to be silent regarding determining the trajectory speed of the vehicle using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor to determine the trajectory speed.
However Zebiak teaches in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0052 wherein projected speeds of a vehicle at a plurality of upcoming locations are determined based on an equation including the velocity of the vehicle and projected elevation changes for the vehicle, the velocity of the vehicle being determined from a sensor of a vehicle sensor system as taught in at least Paragraph 0037 [i.e. determining the trajectory speed of the vehicle using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor to determine the trajectory speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kakkar by incorporating the determination of vehicle speed at a trajectory position based on a sensor signal and prediction algorithm as taught by Zebiak.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zebiak in at least Paragraphs 0004, 0052, & 0053, the vehicle may be prevented from violating a maximum speed at a future trajectory point by preemptive control, improving the safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein receiving the signal from the at least one sensor comprises receiving a signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a steering angle sensor, a user input sensor, and a global positioning system.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including location and motion sensors, such as GPS systems, accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes [i.e. receiving a signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and a global positioning system].
Claim(s) 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakkar (US 2024/0147888 A1) in view of Zebiak (US 2020/0398810 A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Kakkar discloses: A method for controlling a vehicle relative to a border within a geographic region, (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraph 0002 a method of maintaining an autonomous vehicle within geographic boundaries, including the generation of a footprint of the vehicle, projecting the vehicle projection path, and limiting the speed of the vehicle based on an intersection of the projected footprint with a geofence boundary [i.e. a method for controlling a vehicle relative to a border within a geographic region])
the vehicle being operated by a user, (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053, 0071, & 0088 wherein a vehicle may operate semi-autonomously, receiving inputs from a human operator, including throttle commands [i.e. the vehicle being operated by a user])
the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle, the method comprising: (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0008 & 0091 wherein the method may be implemented using one or more processors associated with the vehicle connected with a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium containing instructions to implement the steps of the method [i.e. the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle])
determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein based at least in part on a current position, heading, and steering state, a predicted path for a vehicle may be determined, including a projection footprint of the vehicle as it traverses said path [i.e. determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle]. At least Figure 4 of Kakkar, above, depicts an example of such, wherein the vehicle’s predicted path is represented by Elements 412-1 and 412-2, and the projection footprint is depicted by Element 416)
the predicted trajectory path being at least partially based on user input from the user; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053, 0071, & 0088 wherein a vehicle may operate semi-autonomously, receiving inputs from a human operator, including throttle commands, which may be used to determine the projection footprint of the vehicle and connected implement as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0085 & 0086 [i.e. the predicted trajectory path being at least partially based on user input from the user])
determining a trajectory position of the vehicle, the trajectory position corresponding to a point of interest related to the distance between the vehicle and the border on the predicted trajectory path; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052 wherein the vehicle may operate in an environment constrained by boundaries [i.e. a border, Elements 410 of Figure 4, above]. At least Paragraphs 0054 – 0056 of Kakkar further disclose wherein future positions and orientations of a vehicle may be determined along a path [i.e. determining a trajectory position of the vehicle], with the projection footprint of the point(s) along the path being compared to the boundaries of the geofenced area to determine if any position/orientation of the vehicle along the predicted future path will intersect with the boundary [i.e. the trajectory position of the vehicle corresponding to a point of interest related to a distance between the vehicle and the border on the predicted trajectory path])
determining a separation distance between the border and the trajectory position; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0019, 0057, & 0058 wherein the projection footprint of the vehicle may be compared to the defined boundary to determine if an intersection with the boundary will occur at a future point [i.e. determining a separation distance between the border and the trajectory position], as well as determining an intermediate position and orientation a sufficient distance from the boundary where a reduced maximum speed should be applied)
in response to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold: (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0058 wherein the vehicle may be controlled to apply a reduced maximum speed to the travel of the vehicle as the vehicle approaches future positions and orientations, such that the vehicle may achieve a maximum speed [such as a full stop] prior to the intersection of the vehicle with the boundary [i.e. controlling a speed of the vehicle responsive to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold]. As depicted in Figure 4, above, this may include in an example controlling the speed of the vehicle to be 15 mph at intermediate point 420-2, which is a specified distance [i.e. a distance threshold] from the boundary, and controlling the speed of the vehicle to be 0 mph just prior to the vehicle intersecting the boundary at point 420-3/432 [i.e. the intersection denotes a distance threshold of above zero separation distance])
Kakkar however appears to be silent regarding:
determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position; and in response to the trajectory speed being greater a speed threshold, controlling the speed of the vehicle.
However Zebiak teaches wherein vehicle speeds at upcoming locations may be projected and compared to a maximum allowed speed to determine if vehicle speed control should take place.
determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position; and in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the speed of the vehicle. (However Zebiak teaches in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0052 wherein projected speeds of a vehicle at a plurality of upcoming locations are determined based on an equation including the velocity of the vehicle and projected elevation changes for the vehicle [i.e. determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position]. At least Paragraph 0053 of Zebiak further discloses wherein the projected speeds at each upcoming location are compared to a maximum allowed speed to determine if any of the projected upcoming speeds are in violation of the maximum allowed speed. If so, Zebiak discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0085 wherein the vehicle controller controls the propulsion system to adjust the commanded axle torque to maintain the actual speed of the vehicle within the allowed speed range at each of the predetermined upcoming locations [i.e. in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the vehicle])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kakkar by incorporating the determination of vehicle speed at a trajectory position and comparison of said speed to a maximum speed threshold to determine if vehicle control should be performed as taught by Zebiak.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zebiak in at least Paragraphs 0004, 0052, & 0053, the vehicle may be prevented from violating a maximum speed at a future trajectory point by preemptive control, improving the safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18:
The method of claim 17, wherein controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting the speed of the vehicle, such that when the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, the speed of the vehicle is less than a speed threshold, and wherein the speed threshold is based on a speed limit, and the speed limit is based at least in part on the separation distance.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0059 wherein a reduced maximum speed may be applied to a vehicle as the vehicle approaches a future position and orientation [i.e. controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting the speed of the vehicle], such that as the vehicle reaches specified intermediate or intersection position(s), a specified maximum speed [such as a full stop] is achieved [i.e. such that when the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, the speed of the vehicle is equal to a speed limit which is based at least in part on the separation distance].
Regarding Claim 19:
The method of claim 17, further comprising: receiving a signal from at least one sensor, the vehicle including the at least one sensor for detecting at least one of: a current orientation of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, a user input, and a current position of the vehicle; and wherein determining the trajectory speed of the vehicle comprises: using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including location and motion sensors, such as GPS systems, accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes to determine the heading of the vehicle [i.e. at least one sensor for detecting a current orientation of the vehicle]. Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0037 & 0040 – 0043 wherein the projection footprint of a vehicle may be determined based on the predicted path of the vehicle, which may be determined from a heading and current steering angle of the vehicle [i.e. wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises: using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor].
Regarding Claim 20:
The method of claim 19, wherein receiving the signal from the at least one sensor comprises receiving the signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a steering angle sensor, a user input sensor, and a global positioning system.
Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including location and motion sensors, such as GPS systems, accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes [i.e. receiving a signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and a global positioning system].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakkar (US 2024/0147888 A1) in view of Halder (US 2020/0181879 A1).
Regarding Claim 21:
Kakkar discloses: A method for controlling a vehicle relative to a border within a geographic region, (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraph 0002 a method of maintaining an autonomous vehicle within geographic boundaries, including the generation of a footprint of the vehicle, projecting the vehicle projection path, and limiting the speed of the vehicle based on an intersection of the projected footprint with a geofence boundary [i.e. a method for controlling a vehicle relative to a border within a geographic region])
the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle, the method comprising: (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0008 & 0091 wherein the method may be implemented using one or more processors associated with the vehicle connected with a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium containing instructions to implement the steps of the method [i.e. the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle])
determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle, (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein based at least in part on a current position, heading, and steering state, a predicted path for a vehicle may be determined, including a projection footprint of the vehicle as it traverses said path [i.e. determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle]. At least Figure 4 of Kakkar, above, depicts an example of such, wherein the vehicle’s predicted path is represented by Elements 412-1 and 412-2, and the projection footprint is depicted by Element 416)
determining a trajectory position of the vehicle, the trajectory position of the vehicle corresponding to a point of interest related to a distance between the vehicle and the border on the predicted trajectory path; (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052 wherein the vehicle may operate in an environment constrained by boundaries [i.e. a border, Elements 410 of Figure 4, above]. At least Paragraphs 0054 – 0056 of Kakkar further disclose wherein future positions and orientations of a vehicle may be determined along a path [i.e. determining a trajectory position of the vehicle], with the projection footprint of the point(s) along the path being compared to the boundaries of the geofenced area to determine if any position/orientation of the vehicle along the predicted future path will intersect with the boundary [i.e. the trajectory position of the vehicle corresponding to a point of interest related to a distance between the vehicle and the border on the predicted trajectory path])
determining a separation distance between the border and the trajectory position; and (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0019, 0057, & 0058 wherein the projection footprint of the vehicle may be compared to the defined boundary to determine if an intersection with the boundary will occur at a future point [i.e. determining a separation distance between the border and the trajectory position], as well as determining an intermediate position and orientation a sufficient distance from the boundary where a reduced maximum speed should be applied)
in response to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold, controlling a speed of the vehicle. (Kakkar discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0058 wherein the vehicle may be controlled to apply a reduced maximum speed to the travel of the vehicle as the vehicle approaches future positions and orientations, such that the vehicle may achieve a maximum speed [such as a full stop] prior to the intersection of the vehicle with the boundary [i.e. controlling a speed of the vehicle responsive to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold]. As depicted in Figure 4, above, this may include in an example controlling the speed of the vehicle to be 15 mph at intermediate point 420-2, which is a specified distance [i.e. a distance threshold] from the boundary, and controlling the speed of the vehicle to be 0 mph just prior to the vehicle intersecting the boundary at point 420-3/432 [i.e. the intersection denotes a distance threshold of above zero separation distance])
Kakkar however appears to be silent regarding:
the predicted trajectory path being based at least in part on environmental aspects;
However Halder teaches wherein environmental aspects may be used to determine a predicted path of a vehicle.
the predicted trajectory path being based at least in part on environmental aspects; (However Halder teaches in at least Paragraphs 0088 & 0089 wherein a vehicle control system may be configured to detect worksite information, such as precipitation, depth of gravel surface, angle of incline and slope [i.e. environmental aspects], and estimate the dynamic behavior of the vehicle based on said inputs, including the determination of a predicted path of the vehicle based on the aforementioned environmental conditions [i.e. the predicted trajectory path being based at least in part on environmental aspects])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kakkar by incorporating the determination of predicted vehicle behavior based on environmental information, such as slope and surface type, as taught by Halder.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Halder in at least Paragraph 0090, a more accurate predicted path for the vehicle may be determined, improving the assessment of predicted future dynamic behavior of the vehicle relative to locations, such as proximity to a geofence as in Kakkar.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Carlander (US 2024/0199011 A1): Carlander recites a computer-implemented method for lane/road keeping, including the detection of a lane or road boundary, and the performance of control actions to maintain the vehicle within a predefined distance from the boundary. The trajectory of the vehicle may be predicted, and upon determination that an intersection between the trajectory and boundary take place, control of the vehicle, including steering control, takes place.
Kawamata (US 2016/0019792 A1): Kawamata recites a vehicle control system, including a unit for determining a vehicle speed at different points along a route, as a function of coasting parameters. Assessment takes place regarding if acceleration or deceleration control should be performed in order to achieve specified speed values.
Nangeroni (US 2019/0383627 A1): Nageroni recites a method for controlling a vehicle, including with respect to the boundary of a geographic region. Vehicle operation rules for said region may be determined, and implemented to control the vehicle in accordance with said rules.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights