DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
No claims have been amended.
Claims 2 and 13 were previously canceled.
No new claims have been introduced.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-23 are currently pending.
The official correspondence below is an after non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank (US 20190364732 A1) in view of Katou (US 20180151070 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Blank discloses, a first vehicle position sensor (Blank: [0128] System 716 includes a position-referencing component 718 and zone classification logic 720. Position-referencing component 718 is configured to receive, or otherwise obtain, location data associated with the sensor data. The location data can be generated by a location system that includes a component that outputs a current geographical location (such as location data from a GPS system) of the sensor(s) that generates the sensor data; [0142] the operational data obtained at block 822 comprises position-referenced sensor data indicative of performance of the machines at particular locations; [0251] Example 19 is the mobile machine control system of any or all previous examples, wherein the first mobile machine comprises a first agricultural harvesting machine, the at least one other mobile machine comprises a second agricultural harvesting machine, and the machine data comprises position-referenced data associated with the first and second agricultural harvesting machines) configured to detect a position of the first vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0082] In operation, and by way of overview, field selector detection and processing logic 340 illustratively detects user actuation of a field selector on a user interface 216. It illustratively retrieves information corresponding to the selected field (such as which combines are operating in that field, the crop planted in the field, the location of the field, etc.). It then controls display generator logic 280 to display information about the combines operating in the selected field; [0083] one or more of the machines operating in the selected field; [0100] for each of the different combines operating the selected field; [0107] a selectable display element corresponding to each of the machines that are operating in the selected field [0144] The geographic boundaries (for use in identifying the operational data to be used in the analysis at block 828) can be determined in any of a number of ways ... it can be determined manual, automatically, and/or semi-automatically based on field maps, location information from the machines, or data from external sources (e.g., FMIS zone maps, etc.); [0222] Example 10 is the method of any or all previous examples, wherein calculating the settings offset comprises identifying a set of corresponding zones based on the position-referenced data, identifying a first set of machine settings that is associated with a first one of the zones and corresponds to the first harvesting machine, identifying a second set of machine settings that is associated with a second one of the zones and corresponds to the second harvesting machine); a second vehicle position sensor (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) configured to detect a position of a second vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0082] In operation, and by way of overview, field selector detection and processing logic 340 illustratively detects user actuation of a field selector on a user interface 216. It illustratively retrieves information corresponding to the selected field (such as which combines are operating in that field, the crop planted in the field, the location of the field, etc.). It then controls display generator logic 280 to display information about the combines operating in the selected field; [0083] one or more of the machines operating in the selected field; [0100] for each of the different combines operating the selected field; [0107] a selectable display element corresponding to each of the machines that are operating in the selected field [0144] The geographic boundaries (for use in identifying the operational data to be used in the analysis at block 828) can be determined in any of a number of ways ... it can be determined manual, automatically, and/or semi-automatically based on field maps, location information from the machines, or data from external sources (e.g., FMIS zone maps, etc.); [0222] Example 10 is the method of any or all previous examples, wherein calculating the settings offset comprises identifying a set of corresponding zones based on the position-referenced data, identifying a first set of machine settings that is associated with a first one of the zones and corresponds to the first harvesting machine, identifying a second set of machine settings that is associated with a second one of the zones and corresponds to the second harvesting machine), the second vehicle being a different vehicle than the first vehicle (Blank: [0251] Example 19 is the mobile machine control system of any or all previous examples, wherein the first mobile machine comprises a first agricultural harvesting machine, the at least one other mobile machine comprises a second agricultural harvesting machine, and the machine data comprises position-referenced data associated with the first and second agricultural harvesting machines); and a controller configured to acquire first vehicle position data indicative of the position of the first vehicle (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) and second vehicle position data indicative of the position of the second vehicle (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]), the controller being further configured to determine a work area (Blank: [0126] Further, settings input 702 can include a zone identifier 710 that identifies a particular work zone in which the target machine is to be operated with settings 704. For the sake of the present discussion, a work zone (or zone) refers to a work area in which a machine is operating, or can be operated. For instance, a zone may refer to an agricultural field, or portion thereof, having a crop to be harvested by combine 100; [0147] For sake of further illustration, FIG. 14B illustrates a more detailed example of block 828. At block 836, a plurality of zones are selected for comparison to determine whether they have comparable conditions, such that they are considered as comparable or similar zones. In the illustrated example, a first zone and a second zone are selected) that includes a plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0147] For sake of further illustration, FIG. 14B illustrates a more detailed example of block 828. At block 836, a plurality of zones are selected for comparison to determine whether they have comparable conditions, such that they are considered as comparable or similar zones ... a first zone and a second zone are selected; [0155] the machine is in a non-harvest state when it is not harvesting agricultural material, such as when the operator is making a turn at the end of a row in the zone or has just begun (or is just ending) a pass through a row in the zone) extending in a predetermined work direction at the work site (Blank: [0143] two or more work zones are considered as corresponding work zones if they have comparable conditions, such as conditions that are within a similarity threshold; [0155] the machine is in a non-harvest state when it is not harvesting agricultural material, such as when the operator is making a turn at the end of a row in the zone or has just begun (or is just ending) a pass through a row in the zone; [0159] the second zone is considered to have a threshold correspondence to the source zone if it is substantially similar, as determined by the classification and zone mapping information), allocate the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0155] the machine is in a non-harvest state when it is not harvesting agricultural material, such as when the operator is making a turn at the end of a row in the zone or has just begun (or is just ending) a pass through a row in the zone).
Blank does not explicitly recite the terminology "lane". However, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. For example, Blank is replete with references to "zones", which is defined as "[0126] a zone may refer to an agricultural field, or portion thereof". The examiner respectfully submits, a work zone is parallel to a work lane in service and result.
Blank does not explicitly disclose, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site, and disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Katou discloses, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site (Katou: [0130] a small rectangular determination area 1100 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1101 relative to the another vehicle 1102. Therefore, the determination area 1100 and a safety area 1103 of the another vehicle 1102 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision), and disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0138] trucks are both traveling on a preset travel path … a rectangular determination area 1300 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1301 relative to the another vehicle 1302. Therefore, the determination area 1300 and a safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... the another vehicle 1302 changes to “other” because of its departure from the preset travel path ... the determination area 1320 and the safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision), for the benefit of mitigating collision risks.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Blank to include path and distance restriction taught by Katou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigate collision risks.
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Katou also discloses, the work restricted area includes a first restricted area (Katou: [0117] The size of the radius of the determination area can be set beforehand, for example, based on the length of the arm of the own vehicle as the excavator; [0125-0126] collision risk determination section 206 makes the size of the radius of the circular determination area, which has been set in step 1002 ... the collision risk determination section 206 makes the size of the radius of the circular determination area, which has been set in step 1002, larger than the original value, for example, by multiplying the radius with a factor greater than 1, smaller than the original value, for example, by multiplying the radius with a factor smaller than 1; [0130]), and the controller is further configured to determine, as the first restricted area, a range that includes the work lane positioned in a range of a predetermined distance from the position of the second vehicle in a width direction of the work lane in which the plurality of work lanes are aligned (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0140] trucks are both traveling on a preset travel path … a rectangular determination area 1300 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1301 relative to the another vehicle 1302. Therefore, the determination area 1300 and a safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... the another vehicle 1302 changes to “other” because of its departure from the preset travel path ... the determination area 1320 and the safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... varying the magnitude of the threshold according to the priorities of the own vehicle and another vehicle instead of varying the size of the determination area as described in this embodiment).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 3, and further, Katou also discloses, disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the first restricted area in the work lane positioned in the first restricted area (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0140] trucks are both traveling on a preset travel path … a rectangular determination area 1300 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1301 relative to the another vehicle 1302. Therefore, the determination area 1300 and a safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... the another vehicle 1302 changes to “other” because of its departure from the preset travel path ... the determination area 1320 and the safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... varying the magnitude of the threshold according to the priorities of the own vehicle and another vehicle instead of varying the size of the determination area as described in this embodiment).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Katou also discloses, the work restricted area includes a second restricted area (Katou: [0117] The size of the radius of the determination area can be set beforehand, for example, based on the length of the arm of the own vehicle as the excavator; [0125-0126] collision risk determination section 206 makes the size of the radius of the circular determination area, which has been set in step 1002 ... the collision risk determination section 206 makes the size of the radius of the circular determination area, which has been set in step 1002, larger than the original value, for example, by multiplying the radius with a factor greater than 1, smaller than the original value, for example, by multiplying the radius with a factor smaller than 1; [0130]), and the controller is further configured to determine, as the second restricted area, a range that includes the work lane overlapping a rotation range of the second vehicle (Katou: [FIG. 12A, 12B]; [0115] circular determination area is set … the risk of collision is determined from the state of overlapping between the determination area and a safety area of the another vehicle).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Blank discloses, acquiring first vehicle position data (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) indicative of a position of the first vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0144]); acquiring second vehicle position data (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) indicative of a position of a second vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0144]), the second vehicle being a different vehicle than the first vehicle (Blank: [0251]); determining a work area that includes a plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0126]; [0147]; [0155]) extending in a predetermined work direction at the work site (Blank: [0152]; [0126]; [0136]; [0143]; [0155]; [0159]); allocating the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0144]; [0155]; [0158-0164]).
Blank does not explicitly disclose, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site, and disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Katou discloses, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site (Katou: [0130] a small rectangular determination area 1100 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1101 relative to the another vehicle 1102. Therefore, the determination area 1100 and a safety area 1103 of the another vehicle 1102 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision), and disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0138] trucks are both traveling on a preset travel path … a rectangular determination area 1300 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1301 relative to the another vehicle 1302. Therefore, the determination area 1300 and a safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... the another vehicle 1302 changes to “other” because of its departure from the preset travel path ... the determination area 1320 and the safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision), for the benefit of mitigating collision risks.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Blank to include path and distance restriction taught by Katou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigate collision risks.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Katou also discloses, determining, as the first restricted area (Katou: [0117]; [0125-0126]; [0130]), the work lane positioned in a range of a predetermined distance from the position of the second vehicle in a width direction of the work lane in which the plurality of work lanes are aligned (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0140]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 14, and further, Katou also discloses, disabling allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the first restricted area in the work lane positioned in the first restricted area (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0140]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Katou also discloses, determining, as the second restricted area (Katou: [0117] The size of the radius of the determination area can be set beforehand, for example, based on the length of the arm of the own vehicle as the excavator; [0125-0126] collision risk determination section 206 makes the size of the radius of the circular determination area, which has been set in step 1002 ... the collision risk determination section 206 makes the size of the radius of the circular determination area, which has been set in step 1002, larger than the original value, for example, by multiplying the radius with a factor greater than 1, smaller than the original value, for example, by multiplying the radius with a factor smaller than 1; [0130]), a range that includes the work lane overlapping a rotation range of the second vehicle (Katou: [FIG. 12A, 12B]; [0115] circular determination area is set … the risk of collision is determined from the state of overlapping between the determination area and a safety area of the another vehicle).
Claim(s) 6-11 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank (US 20190364732 A1) in view of Katou (US 20180151070 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Hamada (US 20180068561 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, interrupt the automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the second restricted area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, interrupt the automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the second restricted area (Hamada: [0018] FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping a vehicle taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, update the work restricted area and reallocate the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes when the second vehicle moves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, update the work restricted area (Hamada: [0095] travel-permitted zone setting unit 311b sets only the zone 92 as a new travel-permitted zone) and reallocate the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes when the second vehicle moves (Hamada: see [0098-0103] for creating new and eliminating travel zones and permission for vehicle passing or a vehicle that has passed), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include updating restrictions taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Blank also discloses, an input device for an operator to control the first vehicle (Blank: [0047] he display can be an interactive display with user input mechanisms 210 for interaction by operator 212), receive an operation command from the input device for the first vehicle (Blank: [0047] he display can be an interactive display with user input mechanisms 210 for interaction by operator 212), and allow the first vehicle to move based on the operation command (Blank: [0002] Some inputs not only include controlling the combine direction and speed, but also threshing clearance and sieve settings, rotor and fan speed settings, and a wide variety of other settings and control inputs).
Blank, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the controller being further configured to stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, the controller being further configured to stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area (Hamada: [0018] FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone; [0099] travel permission restricted zone does not overlap a travel-permitted zone for the oncoming vehicle, and FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone; [0103]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Blank also discloses, an input device configured to receive an input command from the operator (Blank: [0002] Some inputs not only include controlling the combine direction and speed, but also threshing clearance and sieve settings, rotor and fan speed settings, and a wide variety of other settings and control inputs) and to output an operation command corresponding to the input command to the controller (Blank: [0002] Some inputs not only include controlling the combine direction and speed, but also threshing clearance and sieve settings, rotor and fan speed settings, and a wide variety of other settings and control inputs).
Blank, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the work restricted area being determined based on the operation command.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, the work restricted area being determined based on the operation command (Hamada: [ABS] The traffic control server 31 is provided with a travel-permitted zone setting unit 331b for setting a first travel-permitted zone 100, which is a partial zone of the outgoing lane and in which travel of the first vehicle 70 is permitted, and a second travel-permitted zone; [0046] a server-side input device; [0099]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include operational commands taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Blank also discloses, an input device for an operator to control the second vehicle (Blank: [0125] System 270 is configured to receive a settings input 702 that is associated with a target machine, and to generate bias-compensated (adjusted) settings 704 for the target machine based on settings input 702. Settings input 702 can include a target machine identifier 706 that identifies the target machine and a reference machine identifier 708 that identifies at least one other reference machine on which settings 704 is to be based. For example, the reference machine can comprise a particular, second machine, a number of machines within a fleet, or an entire fleet of machines), receive an operation command from the input device for the second vehicle (Blank: [0125] System 270 is configured to receive a settings input 702 that is associated with a target machine, and to generate bias-compensated (adjusted) settings 704 for the target machine based on settings input 702. Settings input 702 can include a target machine identifier 706 that identifies the target machine and a reference machine identifier 708 that identifies at least one other reference machine on which settings 704 is to be based. For example, the reference machine can comprise a particular, second machine, a number of machines within a fleet, or an entire fleet of machines), and allow the first vehicle to move based on the operation command (Blank: [0002] Some inputs not only include controlling the combine direction and speed, but also threshing clearance and sieve settings, rotor and fan speed settings, and a wide variety of other settings and control inputs).
Blank, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the controller being further configured to stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, the controller being further configured to stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area (Hamada: [0018] FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone; [0099] travel permission restricted zone does not overlap a travel-permitted zone for the oncoming vehicle, and FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone; [0103]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, stop the first vehicle when a vehicle other than the second vehicle and the first vehicle intrudes into the work area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, stop the first vehicle when a vehicle other than the second vehicle and the first vehicle intrudes into the work area (Hamada: [0034] In practice, plural dump trucks 20 and plural manned vehicles 70 are operating together; [0094] If there is a zone given to another vehicle, however, the travel-permitted zone is given up to a point before the former zone; [0108-0109], [0113]; see [ABS] for autonomous dump truck 20 stopping for manned light vehicle 70, and [0067] for dump trucks stopping for dump trucks (manned and unmanned)), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 16, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, interrupting the automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the second restricted area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, interrupting the automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the second restricted area (Hamada: [0018] FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include interrupting operations taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, updating the work restricted area and reallocating the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes when the second vehicle moves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, updating the work restricted area (Hamada: [0095] travel-permitted zone setting unit 311b sets only the zone 92 as a new travel-permitted zone) and reallocating the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes when the second vehicle moves (Hamada: see [0098-0103] for creating new and eliminating travel zones and permission for vehicle passing or a vehicle that has passed), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include updating restrictions taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Blank also discloses, allowing the first vehicle to move based on a command from an operator (Blank: [0025] work machines have mechanisms that are controlled by the operator in performing operations).
Blank, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, stopping the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, stopping the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area (Hamada: [0018] FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone; [0099] travel permission restricted zone does not overlap a travel-permitted zone for the oncoming vehicle, and FIG. 9B illustrates a state that the dump truck has stopped as the setting of a new travel-permitted zone was not feasible by being hampered with a travel permission restricted zone; [0103]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, stopping the first vehicle when a vehicle other than the second vehicle and the first vehicle intrudes into the work area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, stopping the first vehicle when a vehicle other than the second vehicle and the first vehicle intrudes into the work area (Hamada: [0034]; [0094]; [0108-0109], [0113]; see [ABS] for autonomous dump truck 20 stopping for manned light vehicle 70, and [0067] for dump trucks stopping for dump trucks (manned and unmanned)), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 21, Blank discloses, a first vehicle position sensor (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) configured to detect a position of the first vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0144]); a second vehicle position sensor (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) configured to detect a position of a second vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0144]), the second vehicle being a different vehicle than the first vehicle (Blank: [0251]); an input device configure to control the first vehicle or the second vehicle in accordance with an input from an operator (Blank: [0030]); and a controller configured to acquire first vehicle position data indicative of the position of the first vehicle (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) and second vehicle position data indicative of the position of the second vehicle (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]), the controller being further configured to determine a work area (Blank: [0126]; [0147]) that includes a plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0147]; [0155]) extending in a predetermined work direction at the work site (Blank: [0152]; [0126]; [0136]; [0143]; [0155]; [0159]), allocate the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0144]; [0155]; [0158-0164]), receive an operation command from the input device, and allow the first vehicle to move based on the operation command (Blank: [0002]; [0047]).
Blank does not explicitly disclose, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site, control the first vehicle so that automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work restricted area is restricted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Katou discloses, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site (Katou: [0130]), control the first vehicle so that automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work restricted area is restricted (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0138]), for the benefit of mitigating collision risks.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Blank to include operation ranges taught by Katou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigate collision risks.
Blank, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes (Hamada: [0018]; [0099]; [0103]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 22, Blank discloses, acquiring first vehicle position data (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) indicative of a position of the machine first vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0144]); acquiring second vehicle position data (Blank: [0128]; [0142]; [0251]) indicative of a position of a second vehicle at the work site (Blank: [0144]), the second vehicle being a different vehicle than the first vehicle (Blank: [0251]); determining a work area that includes a plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0126]; [0147]; [0155]) extending in a predetermined work direction at the work site (Blank: [0152]; [0126]; [0136]; [0143]; [0155]; [0159]); allocating the first vehicle to the plurality of work lanes (Blank: [0144]; [0155]; [0158-0164]); receiving an operation command from an input device, the input device being configured to control the first vehicle or the second vehicle responsive to an input from an operator (Blank: [0030]); and allowing the first vehicle to move based on the operation command (Blank: [0002]).
Blank does not explicitly disclose, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site, control the first vehicle so that automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work restricted area is restricted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Katou discloses, determining, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site (Katou: [0130]), controlling the first vehicle so that automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work restricted area is restricted (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0138]), for the benefit of mitigating collision risks.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Blank to include operation ranges taught by Katou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigate collision risks.
Blank, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, stop the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, stopping the first vehicle in the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes (Hamada: [0018]; [0099]; [0103]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include stopping taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 23, Blank, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Blank as modified does not explicitly disclose, control the first vehicle so that automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work restricted area is restricted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses, control the first vehicle so that automatic operation of the first vehicle in the work restricted area is restricted (Hamada: [0029]), for the benefit of providing a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Blank to include operation in accordance with restrictions taught by Hamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a technology that, even if there is a communication loss especially upon passing of an unmanned vehicle by an oncoming manned vehicle on a haul road, can control to avoid interference between the unmanned vehicle and the manned vehicle without inducing a reduction in work efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09-22-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of Blank (US 20190364732 A1) fails to disclose a first and second machine in a common work area, restricted area, and work lanes. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited above, Blank (US 20190364732 A1) discloses:
configured to detect a position of a second vehicle at the work site
[0144] The geographic boundaries (for use in identifying the operational data to be used in the analysis at block 828) can be determined in any of a number of ways ... it can be determined manual, automatically, and/or semi-automatically based on field maps, location information from the machines, or data from external sources (e.g., FMIS zone maps, etc.)
[0082] In operation, and by way of overview, field selector detection and processing logic 340 illustratively detects user actuation of a field selector on a user interface 216. It illustratively retrieves information corresponding to the selected field (such as which combines are operating in that field, the crop planted in the field, the location of the field, etc.). It then controls display generator logic 280 to display information about the combines operating in the selected field;
[0083] one or more of the machines operating in the selected field;
[0100] for each of the different combines operating the selected field;
[0107] a selectable display element corresponding to each of the machines that are operating in the selected field;
[0222] Example 10 is the method of any or all previous examples, wherein calculating the settings offset comprises identifying a set of corresponding zones based on the position-referenced data, identifying a first set of machine settings that is associated with a first one of the zones and corresponds to the first harvesting machine, identifying a second set of machine settings that is associated with a second one of the zones and corresponds to the second harvesting machine
A plurality of work lanes
[0147] For sake of further illustration, FIG. 14B illustrates a more detailed example of block 828. At block 836, a plurality of zones are selected for comparison to determine whether they have comparable conditions, such that they are considered as comparable or similar zones ... a first zone and a second zone are selected;
[0155] the machine is in a non-harvest state when it is not harvesting agricultural material, such as when the operator is making a turn at the end of a row in the zone or has just begun (or is just ending) a pass through a row in the zone
While Blank discloses different work e.g., in [0100] and [0183]. However, that is for another example or feature of operating a machine in a separate location with similar conditions. Be-that-as-it-may, the prior art of Blank discloses a plurality of work machines operating in a same location/field/zone, as cited above.
Blank discloses work machines being confined to a work zone. However, Blank was not relied upon for disclosing determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site, and disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Katou discloses, determine, as a work restricted area of the first vehicle, a predetermined range in which the position of the second vehicle is used as a reference at the work site (Katou: [0130] a small rectangular determination area 1100 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1101 relative to the another vehicle 1102. Therefore, the determination area 1100 and a safety area 1103 of the another vehicle 1102 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision), and disable allocation of the first vehicle to the work lane positioned in the work restricted area from among the plurality of work lanes (Katou: see [0107] path planning; [0130-0138] trucks are both traveling on a preset travel path … a rectangular determination area 1300 is set as a determination area for the own vehicle 1301 relative to the another vehicle 1302. Therefore, the determination area 1300 and a safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision ... the another vehicle 1302 changes to “other” because of its departure from the preset travel path ... the determination area 1320 and the safety area 1304 of the another vehicle 1302 do not overlap with each other, whereby it is determined that there is no risk of collision), for the benefit of mitigating collision risks. Because Blank (US 20190364732 A1) in view of Katou (US 20180151070 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims 1, 12, and 21-22 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bharwani (US 20140228982 A1)
Donnelli (US 20070124050 A1)
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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights