DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This non-final action is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 03/12/2026.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant broadly argues that the claims now amended to recite
“generating an as-built model of measured compaction level of soil covering at least a work order area to be compacted, wherein the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil is layered on an earthworks information model”,
“generating an up-to-date travel path to be driven to cover the work order area to be compacted by the at least one soil compacting device at least once by using compactor operation for compacting soil and measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil while compacting”,
and “driving the soil compactor according to the up-to-date travel path, wherein the up-to-date travel path covers the work order area a number of times such that a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil covers the work order area, and wherein the up-to-date travel path is driven without the compactor operation for compacting soil over the areas where a control system determines that the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil is exceeded”
are not disclosed by the combination of Schlacks, Glee, and Hokkanen. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the emphasis on “measured compaction level of soil” present in the amendments, Glee discloses measurements to the compaction level according to the response of the material using sensors to detect measurable values of parameters like rolling resistance or density, with said sensors present on the compactor and collected during a compaction task pass (see at least ¶ [0003] and [0018]). Therefore the values presented in Figs. 2-4 are relative levels used to compare to a desired minimum compaction level based on detected measurements.
Additionally, Glee also discloses generating up-to-date travel paths without the compactor operation for compacting soil over the areas where a control system determines that the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil is exceeded. The relative values allow the compactor to be directed on subsequent travel paths to ensure all cells within a work area are at the desired compaction level, with subsequent paths excluding cells that have already met minimum compaction levels where physically capable to avoid (see at least ¶ [0004], [0025-0028], and [0033-00034]). Where Glee cannot avoid retreading over sufficiently compacted areas, it is then modified, in combination with Schlacks and Hokkanen, by Marsolek to modifying a travel path and vibration frequency of the compactor machine to reduce over-compaction of the worksite surface (see at least ¶ [0029-0030], [0058], and [0064]).
Lastly, the Applicant argues Hokkanen discloses a design modeling system without use of “as-built” or “compaction level” to indicate up-to-date earthworks information modeling. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner acknowledges these features are not explicitly recited in Hokkanen, such features are not required by Hokkanen to teach or remedy as Glee already demonstrates this up-to-date information being displayed. All Hokkanen is relied on to show is this information can be layered in an earthworks information model, and suggests it can do so by being implemented for an earthmoving machine (compaction machine) performing earthworks according to one of an assortment of built environment information models (BEIMs) and layered according to classification (see at least ¶ [0031] and [0071-0073]). This is would be obvious to combine with Schlacks, Glee, and Marsolek to render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations. The Examiner reiterates the Applicant should avoid arguments against the references individually, as it has been determined one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“measurement arrangement for … measuring…”, “a navigating arrangement for providing…”, and “driving arrangement for driving…” in claim 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlacks et al. (US 20200356088 A1) in view of Glee (US 20100087992 A1), Hokkanen et al. (US 20190161939 A1), and Marsolek et al. (US 20190186094 A1). Schlacks, Glee, and Marsolek are references provided in Applicant’s IDS filings.
Regarding claim 1, Schlacks discloses a method for compacting soil by a soil compactor comprising at least one soil compacting device (see at least ¶ [0005] and Figs. 2A-2B), the method comprising:
determining boundaries for the work order area to be compacted in the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil and saving the determined boundaries for the work order area to be compacted to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil (see at least abstract and ¶ [0073] and [0082-0091] disclosing setting boundaries for a roller compactor between autonomous operating zones and exclusion zones, where each cell of the work area contains information on if it possesses a boundary or not);
and determining, in the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil, location data for an area over which the at least one soil compacting device travels (see at least ¶ [0070], [0072], and [0077] disclosing pathing and location information of where the roller compactor travels in the autonomous operating zone).
While Schlacks discloses generating an up-to-date travel path to be driven to cover the work order area to be compacted by the at least one soil compacting device at least once by using compactor operation for compacting soil (see at least ¶ [0070], [0077-0078], [0096], and [0102-0103] disclosing operating the roller compactor according to an updated path) and suggests updating the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil substantially continuously by at least the location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil (see at least ¶ [0102] disclosing path and status updates to the map process as compaction progresses, including, for example, a current location of the vehicle, an indication of the path being traveled by the vehicle, and, during a compaction task, which portions of the path have been completed), it does not do so by using a measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil while compacting,
determining a threshold for the measured compaction level of soil for the work order area to be compacted;
wherein the up-to-date travel path covers the work order area a number of times such that a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil covers the work order area,
and wherein while driving the soil compactor according to the measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil, the method further comprises:
saving to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil at least the location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil;
updating the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil substantially continuously with the location-specific as-built measured compaction levels of soil acquired during compactor operation;
and updating the up-to-date travel path according to the substantially continuously updated as-built model of measured compaction level of soil, wherein areas exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil are excluded from the areas yet to be covered, and wherein the updated up-to-date travel path covers the work order area yet to be compacted.
However, Glee suggests using a measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil while compacting (see at least abstract and ¶ [0018], [0025], and [0033] disclosing collecting compaction response data of the soil and corresponding it to a location in the work area),
determining a threshold for the measured compaction level of soil for the work order area to be compacted (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing a work area is compacted through multiple passes to reach at least a minimum compaction value);
wherein the up-to-date travel path covers the work order area a number of times such that a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil covers the work order area (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing a work area is compacted through multiple passes to reach at least a minimum compaction value),
and wherein while driving the soil compactor according to the measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil (see at least abstract and ¶ [0025-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing collecting compaction response data of the soil and corresponding it to a location in the work area, and adjusting the path of compaction operations accordingly), the method further comprises:
saving to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil at least the location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil (see at least ¶ [0028] and [0031] disclosing storing compaction specification data corresponding to map cells to memory for later access and updates);
updating the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil substantially continuously with the location-specific as-built measured compaction levels of soil acquired during compactor operation (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0032-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area and controlling the compactor to travel through areas that are not sufficiently compacted);
and updating the up-to-date travel path according to the substantially continuously updated as-built model of measured compaction level of soil, wherein areas exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil are excluded from the areas yet to be covered, and wherein the updated up-to-date travel path covers the work order area yet to be compacted (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0032-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing updating travel path and compactor interaction plan according to a compaction state of a map cell of the work area by updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area and controlling the compactor to travel through areas that are not sufficiently compacted while avoiding areas that are compacted).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate updating map and plan information based on compaction response data as demonstrated in Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. This would help ensure that the compacting task is completed by adjusting the path to further compact areas that are identified as having low compaction.
While Schlacks discloses generating an as-built model of measured compaction level of soil covering at least a work order area to be compacted (see at least ¶ [0072-0073] and [0093] and Fig. 14 disclosing a map of an autonomous operating area where cells within the map mark compaction levels of that area of ground),
and Glee suggests the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil storing the measured compaction levels in association with corresponding locations of the earthworks information model (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0031-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area and storing compaction specification data per map cell),
the combination of Schlacks and Glee does not explicitly disclose the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil is layered on an earthworks information model.
However, Hokkanen suggests the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil is layered on an earthworks information model (see at least ¶ [0031] and [0071-0073] disclosing an earthmoving machine (compaction machine) performing earthworks according to one of an assortment of built environment information models (BEIMs)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the earthwork BEIMs of Hokkanen into the combination of Schlacks and Glee with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a modeled work area. This would help track and store the earthwork information of the worksite as the compactor completes the task in the worksite.
While Schlacks discloses driving the soil compactor according to the up-to-date travel path (see at least ¶ [0070], [0077-0078], [0096], and [0102-0103] disclosing operating the roller compactor according to an updated path), the combination of Schlacks, Glee, and Hokkanen does not explicitly disclose the up-to-date travel path is driven without the compactor operation for compacting soil over the areas where a control system determines that the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil is exceeded.
However, Marsolek suggests the up-to-date travel path is driven without the compactor operation for compacting soil over the areas where a control system determines that the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil is exceeded (see at least ¶ [0029-0030], [0058], and [0064] disclosing a compaction machine controller modifying a travel path and vibration frequency of the compactor machine to reduce over-compaction of the worksite surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the over-compaction prevention of Marsolek into the combination of Schlacks, Glee, and Hokkanen with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a modeled work area. This would help prevent operators from over-compacting a surface and causing deficiencies that would reduce the integrity of structures, and can result in premature cracking or other unwanted conditions (Marsolek ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Schlacks discloses a soil compactor (see at least ¶ [0005] and Figs. 2A-2B), the soil compactor comprising:
a navigating arrangement for providing location and direction of travel data of the at least one soil compacting device (see at least ¶ [0063] disclosing rotary position sensor and GPS receivers disposed on the roller compactor);
driving arrangement for driving the soil compactor (see at least ¶ [0040] disclosing an engine);
and a control system (see at least ¶ [0040] disclosing a vehicle control unit), wherein the control system comprises at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code (see at least ¶ [0040], [0078-0079], and [0129-0130] and Fig. 7 disclosing a robotics processing unit and corresponding software that stores information in a common database), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to with the at least one processor, cause the control system to perform operations comprising:
receiving boundaries for the work order area to be compacted (see at least abstract and ¶ [0082-0091] disclosing setting boundaries for a roller compactor between autonomous operating zones and exclusion zones).
While Schlacks discloses at least one soil compacting device (see at least ¶ [0005] and Figs. 2A-2B), generating an up-to-date travel path to be driven to cover the work order area to be compacted at least once (see at least ¶ [0070], [0077-0078], [0096], and [0102-0103] disclosing operating the roller compactor according to an updated path), and suggests updating the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil substantially continuously by at least the location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil (see at least ¶ [0102] disclosing path and status updates to the map process as compaction progresses, including, for example, a current location of the vehicle, an indication of the path being traveled by the vehicle, and, during a compaction task, which portions of the path have been completed), it does not disclose the device with measurement arrangement for compacting soil and measuring compaction level of soil while compacting,
generating an up-to-date travel path to be driven to cover the work order area to be compacted at least once by using compactor operation for compacting soil and measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil while compacting;
determining a threshold for measured compaction level of soil for the work order area to be compacted;
wherein the up-to-date travel path covers the work order area a number of times such that a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil covers the work order area,
and wherein while driving the soil compactor according to the measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil, the method further comprises:
saving to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil at least a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil;
updating the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil substantially continuously with the location-specific as-built measured compaction levels of soil acquired during compactor operation;
and updating the up-to-date travel path according to the substantially continuously updated as-built model of measured compaction level of soil, wherein areas exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil are excluded from the areas yet to be covered, and wherein the updated up-to-date travel path covers the work order area yet to be compacted.
However, Glee suggests using the device with measurement arrangement for compacting soil and measuring compaction level of soil while compacting (see at least abstract and ¶ [0018], [0025], and [0033] disclosing collecting compaction response data of the soil and corresponding it to a location in the work area),
generating an up-to-date travel path to be driven to cover the work order area to be compacted at least once by using compactor operation for compacting soil and measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil while compacting (see at least abstract and ¶ [0025] and [0033] disclosing collecting compaction response data of the soil and corresponding it to a location in the work area);
determining a threshold for measured compaction level of soil for the work order area to be compacted (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing a work area is compacted through multiple passes to reach at least a minimum compaction value);
wherein the up-to-date travel path covers the work order area a number of times such that a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil covers the work order area (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing a work area is compacted through multiple passes to reach at least a minimum compaction value),
and wherein while driving the soil compactor according to the measurement function for measuring the compaction level of soil (see at least abstract and ¶ [0025-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing collecting compaction response data of the soil and corresponding it to a location in the work area, and adjusting the path of compaction operations accordingly), the method further comprises:
saving to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil at least a location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil (see at least ¶ [0028] and [0031] disclosing storing compaction specification data corresponding to map cells to memory for later access and updates);
updating the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil substantially continuously with the location-specific as-built measured compaction levels of soil acquired during compactor operation (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0032-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area and controlling the compactor to travel through areas that are not sufficiently compacted);
and updating the up-to-date travel path according to the substantially continuously updated as-built model of measured compaction level of soil, wherein areas exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil are excluded from the areas yet to be covered, and wherein the updated up-to-date travel path covers the work order area yet to be compacted (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0032-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing updating travel path and compactor interaction plan according to a compaction state of a map cell of the work area by updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area and controlling the compactor to travel through areas that are not sufficiently compacted while avoiding areas that are compacted).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate updating map and plan information based on compaction response data as demonstrated in Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. This would help ensure that the compacting task is completed by adjusting the path to further compact areas that are identified as having low compaction.
While Schlacks discloses generating an as-built model of measured compaction level of soil covering at least a work order area to be compacted (see at least ¶ [0072-0073] and [0093] and Fig. 14 disclosing a map of an autonomous operating area where cells within the map mark compaction levels of that area of ground),
and Glee suggests the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil storing the measured compaction levels of soil in association with corresponding locations of the earthworks information model (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0031-0034] and Figs. 2-5 disclosing updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area and storing compaction specification data per map cell),
the combination of Schlacks and Glee does not explicitly disclose the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil is layered on an earthworks information model.
However, Hokkanen suggests the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil is layered on an earthworks information model (see at least ¶ [0031] and [0071-0073] disclosing an earthmoving machine (compaction machine) performing earthworks according to one of an assortment of built environment information models (BEIMs)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the earthwork BEIMs of Hokkanen into the combination of Schlacks and Glee with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a modeled work area. This would help track and store the earthwork information of the worksite as the compactor completes the task in the worksite.
While Schlacks discloses driving the soil compactor according to the up-to-date travel path (see at least ¶ [0070], [0077-0078], [0096], and [0102-0103] disclosing operating the roller compactor according to an updated path), the combination of Schlacks, Glee, and Hokkanen does not explicitly disclose the up-to-date travel path is driven without the compactor operation for compacting soil over the areas where the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil is exceeded.
However, Marsolek suggests the up-to-date travel path is driven without the compactor operation for compacting soil over the areas where the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil is exceeded (see at least ¶ [0029-0030], [0058], and [0064] disclosing a compaction machine controller modifying a travel path and vibration frequency of the compactor machine to reduce over-compaction of the worksite surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the over-compaction prevention of Marsolek into the combination of Schlacks, Glee, and Hokkanen with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a modeled work area. This would help prevent operators from over-compacting a surface and causing deficiencies that would reduce the integrity of structures, and can result in premature cracking or other unwanted conditions (Marsolek ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, while Schlacks discloses the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil further comprises boundaries for the areas (see at least abstract and ¶ [0073] and [0082-0091] disclosing setting boundaries for a roller compactor between autonomous operating zones and exclusion zones, where each cell of the work area contains information on if it possesses a boundary or not), it does not consider exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil.
However, Glee suggests exceeding the threshold for the measured compaction level of soil (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing a work area is compacted through multiple passes to reach at least a minimum compaction value).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate updating map and plan information based on compaction response data as demonstrated in Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. Glee demonstrates that it is common knowledge in the field that compacting is done to predetermined specifications of compaction and they affect how the compacting task is performed.
Regarding claim 4, Schlacks discloses generating of the up-to-date travel path is in addition to the work order area to be compacted based at least on physical properties to control the soil compactor, and physical properties of the at least one soil compacting device of the soil compactor (see at least ¶ [0057-0059] and Table 1 disclosing a steering angle sensor and other physical specifications of the roller compactor that go into determining how it operates and how they contribute to performing compacting tasks).
Regarding claim 5, Schlacks does not disclose it is updated the saved location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil by a subsequent level of location specific as-built measured compaction level of soil by at least one of replacing, and rewriting.
However, Glee suggests it is updated the saved location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil to the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil by a subsequent level of location specific as-built measured compaction level of soil by at least one of replacing, and rewriting (see at least ¶ [0025-0028] and [0032-0034] disclosing updating a compaction state of a map cell of the work area).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate updating map and plan information based on compaction response data as demonstrated in Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. This would help ensure that the compacting task is completed by adjusting the path to further compact areas that are identified as having low compaction.
Regarding claim 6, Schlacks does not disclose it is determined that the threshold measured compaction level of soil is exceeded if percentage change in between two subsequent levels of location-specific as-built measured compaction level of soil is below determined threshold percentage.
However, Glee teaches the work area is divided into percentages that are compacted to meet different relative compaction states (see at least ¶ [0031]).
While Glee does not explicitly disclose that particular locations are assessed with a percent change in compaction level, Glee does overtly demonstrate relative values being assigned based on a compaction level scale of 1 to 4. This demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to assign a compaction level value to a portion of a work area, where the value represents a relative degree of compaction that could be used to compare it with itself at a different time, itself following a later pass of the compactor, and/or a different portion of the work area. The use of a percentage values as opposed to scale values as shown in Glee are functionally interchangeable. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate updating compaction level as demonstrated in Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. This would help ensure that the compacting task is completed by adjusting the path to further compact areas that are identified as having lower than desired compaction.
Regarding claim 7, Schlacks discloses the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil further comprises at least one of a location-specific as-built height level (see at least ¶ [0072] and [0074] disclosing the work area map cells include information about a location’s elevation), and a location-specific number of levels of location-specific as-built measured compaction levels of soil.
Regarding claim 8, Schlacks discloses the boundaries for the work order area to be compacted are determined by at least one of the following:
a. manually driven and selecting at least one of rightmost and leftmost edge of the area over which the at least one soil compacting device travels;
b. user defining via a user interface (see at least ¶ [0082-0084] disclosing the boundary selection is made through user defined geo-fencing);
c. indication in an earthworks information model; and
d. a combination of a-c above.
Regarding claim 9, Schlacks does not explicitly disclose the up-to-date travel path comprises transitions where at least one of the compactor operation, and the measurement function is disabled.
However, Glee suggests the up-to-date travel path comprises transitions where at least one of the compactor operation is disabled (see at least ¶ [0039] disclosing operating the compactor with specific timing on when and where the vibratory apparatuses are active or inactive).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the vibratory apparatus control of Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. This provides a greater level of control over the compactor and allows the operator to determine where along its planned path it should deliver compacting functions with greater precision.
Regarding claim 11, Schlacks does not explicitly disclose the up-to-date travel path comprises driving with compactor operation and without compactor operation.
However, Glee suggests the up-to-date travel path comprises driving with compactor operation and without compactor operation (see at least ¶ [0039] disclosing operating the compactor with specific timing on when and where the vibratory apparatuses are active or inactive).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the vibratory apparatus control of Glee into the roller compactor path planning system of Schlacks with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a designated work area. This provides a greater level of control over the compactor and allows the operator to determine where along its planned path it should deliver compacting functions with greater precision.
Regarding claim 13, while Schlacks discloses the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil may be layered on a map (see at least ¶ [0072-0073] and [0093] and Fig. 14 disclosing a map of an autonomous operating area where cells within the map mark compaction levels of that area of ground), the combination of Schlacks and Glee does not disclose the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil may be layered on the earthworks information model.
However, Hokkanen suggests the as-built model of measured compaction level of soil is layered on an earthworks information model (see at least ¶ [0031] and [0071-0073] disclosing an earthmoving machine (compaction machine) performing earthworks according to one of an assortment of built environment information models (BEIMs)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the earthwork BEIMs of Hokkanen into the combination of Schlacks and Glee with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating compactors with the aid of path planning strategies to cover a modeled work area. This would help track and store the earthwork information of the worksite as the compactor completes the task in the worksite.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Schlacks discloses the soil compactor is driven at least one of manually, semiautomatically, and automatically (see at least abstract and ¶ [0108] and Table 2 disclosing the roller compactor possesses various operational states ranging from fully autonomous to manual).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlacks et al. in view of Glee, Hokkanen, and Marsolek, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and in further view of Ready-Campbell et al. (US 20200032490 A1). Schlacks, Glee, Marsolek, and Ready-Campbell are references provided in Applicant’s IDS filings.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Schlacks, Glee, Hokkanen, and Marsolek does not disclose the control system is further configured to perform operations comprising receiving an earthworks information model covering at least the work order area indicating the area to be compacted.
However, Ready-Campbell teaches following excavation-related tasks and routines, including compacting, according to information found in Building Information Modeling (BIM) files (see at least ¶ [0038] and [0061]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the task and routine management modeling of Ready-Campbell into the combination of Schlacks, Glee, Hokkanen, and Marsolek with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward the managed operation of work machines and vehicles in completing designated tasks. Ready-Campbell demonstrates that the use of digital management files to coordinate task and routine instructions is implemented in the field such that one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply it to more efficiently organize compacting operations.
Regarding claim 20, Schlacks discloses the soil compactor is driven at least one of manually, semiautomatically, and automatically (see at least abstract and ¶ [0108] and Table 2 disclosing the roller compactor possesses various operational states ranging from fully autonomous to manual).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./
Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights