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
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on October 14, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claim 15 has been amended. No claims were added. Claim 16 was cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621) in view of Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170) and further in view of Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758).
Regarding claim 1, Kean teaches: An end effector position estimation system for an off-road vehicle, comprising: (Col. 6, lines 17-22: "Referring now to FIGS. 1-10, various embodiments may now be described of a system [system] and method for tracking motion of linkages [position estimation system] for self-propelled work vehicles [off-road vehicle] in independent coordinate frames, said independent coordinate frames independent of a global navigation frame of the work vehicle." ; Col. 6, lines 43-49: "The working tool (48) in this embodiment is an excavator shovel (48) [end effector], which is pivotally connected to the arm (46) at a linkage joint (110). One end of a dogbone (47) is pivotally connected to the arm (46) at a linkage joint (108), and another end of the dogbone (47) is pivotally connected to a tool link (49). A tool link (49) in the context of the referenced work vehicle (20) is a bucket link (49).")
at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to be positioned on at least one of actuators and links of the vehicle that together move an end effector of the vehicle, and configured to generate measurement signals; (Col. 7, lines 27-40: "The controller (112) is configured to receive input signals from some or all of various sensors collectively defining a sensor system (104), individual examples of which may be described below. Various sensors on the sensor system (104) may typically be discrete in nature, but signals representative of more than one input parameter may be provided from the same sensor [signals], and the sensor system (104) may further refer to signals provided from the machine control system. The sensor system (104) in the context of the self propelled vehicle (20) may constitute a system of inertial measurement units (each, an IMU) [IMU measurements]. IMUS are tools that capture a variety of motion- and position-based measurements, including, but not limited to, velocity, acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration." ; Col 10, lines 8-20: "As a further example, the at least one linkage joint may be defined at a linkage joint (108), which constitutes a pivotal connection of the arm (46) to the dogbone (47). In this example, the sensor system (104) may be mounted in such a manner that the opposing sides of the at least one linkage joint are defined as follows [IMU sensors positioned on links of vehicle]: the sensor (104c) mounted on the arm (46) opposing the sensor 104d mounted on the dogbone (47); the sensor (104c) mounted on the arm (46) opposing the sensor (104e) mounted on the tool (48); the sensor (104b) mounted on the boom (44) opposing the sensor (104d) mounted on the dogbone (47); or the sensor (104b) mounted on the boom (44) opposing the sensor (104e) mounted on the tool (48).")
at least one other IMU configured to be positioned on a base of the vehicle, and configured to generate other measurement signals (Col. 6, lines 57-63: "A sensor system (104) is mounted on the work vehicle (20), as represented generally including multiple sensors (104a), (104b), (104c), (104d), (104e) respectively mounted to the main frame (32) [positioned to base of vehicle], the boom (44), the arm (46), the dogbone (47), and the tool (48). The sensor system (104) in the context of the referenced work vehicle may constitute a system of inertial measurement units (each, an IMU) [IMU]." ; Col. 7, lines 37-40: "IMUS are tools that capture a variety of motion- and position-based measurements, including, but not limited to, velocity, acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration [generate other measurement signals].").
Kean does not teach and a computing device to estimate a position of the end effector of the vehicle based at least in part on the measurement signals.
In a similar field of endeavor (machine operation), Roulston, et al. teaches: and a computing device to estimate a position of the end effector of the vehicle based at least in part on the measurement signals and the other measurement signals (Col. 6, line 60 to Col. 7, line 1: "The first and second positions may be the position of the implement (11) at sequential sampling points of the sensor data from the IMU (30) [IMU measurement signals] as the implement (11) moves from start to end positions. For example, the controller (81) [computing device] may continuously estimate the trajectory of the implement (11) [estimate position of end effector] based upon samples of sensor data and the position of the implement (11) at a subsequent sampling point (i.e. the second position) relative to the position of the implement (11) at the previous sampling point (i.e. the first position).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kean to include the teaching of Roulston, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the operation of a machine comprising an implement (Roulston, et al. Col. 1, lines 47-61).
The combination of Kean and Roulston, et al. does not teach and a computing device to estimate a position of the end effector of the vehicle based at least in part on the measurement signals and the other measurement signals.
In a similar field of endeavor (machine operation), Dolinar, et al. teaches: wherein the computing device is configured to perform an estimation method that removes an influence of terrain-induced vibrations and terrain slope in the measurement signals based on the other measurement signals (Paragraph [0165]: "Another signal processing operation includes filtering the GPS data to eliminate unwanted signals which may be caused by vehicle vibration of known frequencies or positional impulses as the result of irregularities in roadway surface (4) (such as pot holes). The signal processors (1500a), (1500b) and (1500c) may be implemented in software contained in the signal processing program (822) [estimation method that removes influence of terrain induced vibrations/slopes] or may be implemented in hardware, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or dedicated signal processor integrated circuit, and may also be combined into one block (1500d) as shown in FIG. 9B. The main function of signal processors (1500a), (1500b) and (1500c) (or 1500d) is to minimize the variation in GPS positional data as the result of noise sources which corrupt GPS positional data [removes vibrations based on measurement signals].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean and Roulston, et al. to include the teaching of Dolinar, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the operation of a machine comprising an implement (Dolinar, et al. Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, in a further embodiment, teach: the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the computing device estimates a real-time rotation or translation of each of the actuators and links in order to estimate the position of the end effector (Roulston, et al. Col. 3, lines 31-34: "The present disclosure further provides a machine comprising: an implement attached to a main unit by an arm arrangement [links]; and a control system for controlling the arm arrangement to move the implement in at least three degrees of freedom, the control system comprising at least one input, an IMU attached to the implement, at least one actuator [actuator] for controlling the movement of the arm arrangement and implement; wherein the control system further comprises a controller [connected to controller – computing device]" ; Roulston, et al. Col. 5, lines 35-39: "Referring to FIG. 2, the at least one sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (30) mounted to the implement (11). The IMU (30) is configured to sense and generate sensor data indicative of movement of the implement (11), particularly its linear acceleration and angular velocity [other measurement signals]." ; Roulston, et al. Col. 5, lines 46-50: "The IMU (30) typically comprises an accelerometer for generating the acceleration data and a gyroscope for generating the angular velocity data. The IMU (30) may be connected to the controller (81) and provide the sensor data to the controller (81) [computing device]." ; Roulston, et al. Col. 6, line 63 to Col. 7, line 1: "For example, the controller (81) [computing device] may continuously estimate the trajectory of the implement (11) [real-time measurement] based upon samples of sensor data and the position of the implement (11) [position measurement data] at a subsequent sampling point (i.e. the second position) relative to the position of the implement (11) at the previous sampling point (i.e. the first position) [translation of actuators linked to sensors].").
Regarding claim 4, Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, in a further embodiment, teach: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the off-road vehicle one of is an agricultural vehicle and a construction vehicle (Roulston, et al. Col. 1, lines 6-8: "The present disclosure relates to a method of operating a machine comprising an implement and a machine for performing such a method. ; Roulston, et al. Col. 1, lines 12-15: "Machines, particularly those in construction, mining, earth moving, goods handling, forestry, agriculture [agricultural vehicle] or other such industries, typically utilise an implement to perform work, a monitoring operation or the like.").
Regarding claim 19, Kean teaches: A method, comprising: generating measurement signals with at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) positioned on at least one of actuators and links of an off-road vehicle that together move an end effector of the vehicle; (Method (200), Steps (210-220), Col. 11, lines 1-8: "Referring again to FIG. 3, the method (200) commences with the step (210) and is followed by the step (220) [method steps], wherein output signals are received from each of the plurality of sensors, said output signals comprising sense elements. The plurality of sensors (i.e., the sensor system (104)), in the context of the self-propelled vehicle (20) [vehicle] disclosed herein, may constitute a system of inertial measurement units (each, an IMU) [IMU]." ; Col. 10, lines 8-20: "As a further example, the at least one linkage joint may be defined at a linkage joint (108), which constitutes a pivotal connection of the arm (46) to the dogbone (47). In this example, the sensor system (104) may be mounted in such a manner that the opposing sides of the at least one linkage joint are defined as follows [IMU sensors positioned on links of vehicle]: the sensor (104c) mounted on the arm (46) opposing the sensor (104d) mounted on the dogbone (47); the sensor (104c) mounted on the arm (46) opposing the sensor (104e) mounted on the tool (48) [end effector]; the sensor (104b) mounted on the boom (44) opposing the sensor (104d) mounted on the dogbone (47); or the sensor (104b) mounted on the boom (44) opposing the sensor (104e) mounted on the tool (48).")
generating other measurement signals with at least one other IMU positioned on a base of the vehicle (Method (200), Steps (210-220), Col. 11, lines 1-8: "Referring again to FIG. 3, the method (200) commences with the step (210) and is followed by the step (220) [method steps], wherein output signals are received from each of the plurality of sensors, said output signals comprising sense elements. The plurality of sensors (i.e., the sensor system (104)), in the context of the self-propelled vehicle (20) [vehicle] disclosed herein, may constitute a system of inertial measurement units (each, an IMU) [IMU]." ; Col. 9, lines 54-57: "A sensor (104a) is mounted on the main frame (32) [IMU configured to be positioned on base of vehicle]; a sensor (104b) is mounted on the boom (44); a sensor (104c) is mounted on the arm (46); a sensor (104d) is mounted on the dogbone (47); and a sensor (104e) is mounted on the tool (4)." ; Col. 7, lines 37-40: "IMUS are tools that capture a variety of motion- and position-based measurements, including, but not limited to, velocity, acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration [generate other measurement signals].")
provided by the at least one other IMU positioned on the base of the vehicle (Col. 9, lines 54-57: "A sensor (104a) is mounted on the main frame (32) [IMU configured to be positioned on base of vehicle]; a sensor (104b) is mounted on the boom (44); a sensor (104c) is mounted on the arm (46); a sensor (104d) is mounted on the dogbone (47); and a sensor (104e) is mounted on the tool (4).").
Kean does not teach and estimating a position of the end effector of the vehicle based at least in part on the compensated measurement signals.
In a similar field of endeavor (machine operation), Roulston, et al. teaches: and estimating a position of the end effector of the vehicle based at least in part on the compensated measurement signals (Step (55), Col. 9, lines 46-54: "If in the mode determination step (55) the controller (81) determines that the implement (11) [end effector of vehicle] is undergoing first or second motion it implements a first or second estimation mode (56), (57) respectively to estimate the trajectory and second position based upon the sensor data [step to estimate position], preferably in the reference frame. In particular, the controller (81) may receive sensor data (58), (59) (which may be calibrated in accordance with the calibration instructions (52)) [compensated measurement signals], process the sensor data (58), (59) and generate trajectory and position data (60), (61).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kean to include the teaching of Roulston, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the operation of a machine comprising an implement (Roulston, et al. Col. 1, lines 47-61).
The combination of Kean and Roulston, et al. does not teach compensating the measurement signals for terrain-induced vibrations based on the other measurement signals.
In a similar field of endeavor (vehicle surface interaction control system), Dolinar, et al. teaches: compensating the measurement signals for terrain-induced vibrations based on the other measurement signals (Paragraph [0165]: "Another signal processing operation includes filtering the GPS data to eliminate unwanted signals which may be caused by vehicle vibration of known frequencies or positional impulses as the result of irregularities in roadway surface (4) (such as pot holes). The signal processors (1500a), (1500b) and (1500c) may be implemented in software contained in the signal processing program (822) [estimation method that removes influence of terrain induced vibrations/slopes] or may be implemented in hardware, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or dedicated signal processor integrated circuit, and may also be combined into one block (1500d) as shown in FIG. 9B. The main function of signal processors (1500a), (1500b) and (1500c) (or 1500d) is to minimize the variation in GPS positional data as the result of noise sources which corrupt GPS positional data [removes vibrations based on measurement signals].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean and Roulston, et al. to include the teaching of Dolinar, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the GPS tracking of a vehicle on a surface (Dolinar, et al. Paragraph [0002]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), and Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758) in view of Stothers, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8914154).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the estimation method includes adaptive feedforward disturbance removal.
In a similar field of endeavor (vibration absorption), Stothers, et al. teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the estimation method includes adaptive feedforward disturbance removal (Col. 10, lines 43-57: "In this embodiment an active tuned vibration absorber (500) is shown attached to a structure (502) via the mount (504). A moveable mass (506) is attached to the mount (504) via a spring (508) and also via an actuator (510). The actuator is controlled by a feedforward control system (512) [feedforward control system] as described above in order to make the vibration absorber (500) appear to be substantially a passive device (514) (from the structure's perspective) [disturbance removal]. The feedforward control system (512) operates in the same way as the control system described above with reference to FIGS. 1 to 4, by attempting to cause the mechanical impedance of the system to converge to a target mechanical impedance corresponding to a passive tuned device. An appropriate choice of target function T is made, based on the operating characteristics of the structure and vibration absorber (as described in more detail later) [adaptive based on desired characteristics]. ; Col. 18, lines 47-48: "The structure (1500) may be any fixed or mobile structure, such as a bridge, building, aircraft or other vehicle [vehicle based system].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Stothers, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling an active tuned vibration absorber for reducing vibrations in a vehicle (Stothers, et al. Col. 1, lines 1-12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), and Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758) in view of Popoola, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180281929).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. teaches: and wherein the computing device is configured to estimate the position of the end effector (Roulston, et al. Col. 6, line 63 to Col. 7, line 1: "For example, the controller (81) [computing device] may continuously estimate the trajectory of the implement (11) [real-time measurement] based upon samples of sensor data and the position of the implement (11) [position measurement data] at a subsequent sampling point (i.e. the second position) relative to the position of the implement (11) at the previous sampling point (i.e. the first position) [translation of actuators linked to sensors].").
The combination of Kean and Roulston, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, and further comprising: at least one range or linear translational position sensor to generate range information based on translation motions of at least one link of the vehicle with linear translational degrees of freedom; and based further on the generated range information.
In a similar field of endeavor (linear translation measurement), Popoola, et al. teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, and further comprising: at least one range or linear translational position sensor to generate range information based on translation motions of at least one link of the vehicle with linear translational degrees of freedom; Paragraph [0025]: "Each actuator unit (106) includes two actuators. For example, a first actuator unit (106a) includes first and second actuators (200), (202). The first actuator (200) includes an actuator drive unit (204) and a linear translation element (208). The actuator drive unit (204) receives rotatory motion from the drive shaft (105) and causes the linear translation element (208) to move linearly in the direction shown generally by arrow A. Similarly, the second actuator (202) includes an actuator drive unit (206) and a linear translation element (210). The actuator drive unit (206) also receives rotatory motion from the drive shaft (105) and causes the linear translation element (210) to move linearly in the direction shown generally by arrow A. In one embodiment, the linear translation units (208), (210) are ball screws. In another, they may be hydraulic or rotary actuators any other type of electromechanical actuators [description of linear translational position unit - degrees of freedom]." ; Paragraph [0026]: "Each actuator (202), (202) includes a sensor (212), (214) contained at least partially therein. The sensors measure a linear displacement of the linear translation elements (208), (210), respectively [linear translational position sensor generates range information based on translation motions].")
based further on the generated range information (Paragraph [0026]: "Each actuator (202), (202) includes a sensor (212), (214) contained at least partially therein. The sensors measure a linear displacement of the linear translation elements (208), (210), respectively [linear translational position sensor generates range information based on translation motions].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Popoola, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the measurement of linear translation of an element within a vehicle (Popoola, et al. Paragraph [0005] and [0025] – [0026]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758), and Popoola, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180281929) in view of Holmqvist, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040158355).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., Dolinar, et al., and Popoola, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 6, wherein the at least one range or linear translational position sensor includes a low-cost laser sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor (load handling and transportation of mobile work vehicles), Holmqvist, et al. teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 6, wherein the at least one range or linear translational position sensor includes a low-cost laser sensor (Paragraph [0013]: "a best estimate of total terrain surface and a developing terrain surface estimate by employing a simple and cost effective system [low-cost] with a few on board sensors for vehicle position determination and terrain surface measurement, where the principal elements of this system comprise a combination of a scanning laser rangefinder and an on board vehicle six degrees of freedom laser-optic position determination system [linear translational position laser sensor]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., Dolinar, et al., and Popoola, et al. to include the teaching of Holmqvist, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of operating autonomous load handling vehicles within industrial environments (Holmqvist, et al. Paragraph [0013]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), Dolinar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758), and Popoola, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 20180281929) in view of Coleman, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6704619).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., Dolinar, et al., and Popoola, et al. teaches: with an IMU located at a moving end of the translating arm to generate together an estimate of a translational motion of at least one link of the vehicle with linear translational degrees of freedom; (Roulston, et al. Col. 3, lines 16-23: "The present disclosure further provides a machine comprising an implement and a control system, the control system comprising at least one input, an IMU attached to the implement and a controller. The controller may be configured to perform the aforementioned method. The implement may be attached to an arm arrangement [IMU located at a moving end of translating arm] for enabling the motion of the implement in the at least three degrees of freedom [linear translational degrees of freedom]. The arm arrangement may be attached to a main body of the machine at the pivot axis." ; Roulston, et al. Col. 6, line 60 to Col. 7, lines 1-6: "The first and second positions may be the position of the implement (11) at sequential sampling points of the sensor data from the IMU (30) as the implement (11) moves from start to end positions. For example, the controller (81) [computing device] may continuously estimate the trajectory of the implement (11) based upon samples of sensor data and the position of the implement (11) at a subsequent sampling point (i.e. the second position) relative to the position of the implement (11) at the previous sampling point (i.e. the first position) [translation motion of link]. The controller (81) may repeat this estimation a plurality of times at each sampling point between the start and end positions of the implement (11). As a result, the continuous motion of the implement (11) can be tracked and the end position of the implement (11) estimated [estimate position].")
and wherein the computing device is configured to estimate the position of the end effector based further on the generated estimate of translation motion (Roulston, et al. Col. 6, line 60 to Col. 7, lines 1-6: "The first and second positions may be the position of the implement (11) at sequential sampling points of the sensor data from the IMU (30) as the implement (11) moves from start to end positions. For example, the controller (81) [computing device] may continuously estimate the trajectory of the implement (11) [real-time measurement] based upon samples of sensor data and the position of the implement (11) at a subsequent sampling point (i.e. the second position) relative to the position of the implement (11) at the previous sampling point (i.e. the first position) [translation of actuators linked to sensors]. The controller (81) may repeat this estimation a plurality of times at each sampling point between the start and end positions of the implement (11). As a result, the continuous motion of the implement (11) can be tracked and the end position of the implement (11) estimated [estimate position].").
The combination of Kean and Roulston, et al., Dolinar, et al., and Popoola, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 6, and further comprising: a combination of an inexpensive low bandwidth range sensor located on a translating arm of the vehicle together.
In a similar field of endeavor (universal guidance and control of automated machines), Coleman, et al. teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 6, and further comprising: a combination of an inexpensive low bandwidth range sensor located on a translating arm of the vehicle together (Col. 4, lines 2-13: "which comprises a motion element (5) [translating arm of vehicle] such as a holding element like a grip or claw, an inertial sensor package 1 installed at an end effector of the motion element (5) for sensing and providing a motion measurement of the motion element (5), a central control processor (2) receiving output of the inertial sensor package and producing commands, a motion actuator (34) receiving the commands from the central control processor (2) to control the movement of the end effector of the motion element (5), and an object tracking and guidance system processor (6) receiving information on the presence of objects of interest from the object detection system (7) [sensors connected to object detection system]". ; Col. 10, lines 48-52: "Referring to FIG. 10, the object detection system (7) can be a data link (71), or sensors (72) or an imager (73). The sensors (72) include radar, laser, laser ranger [range sensor], ladar, sonar, infrared, video, stereo cameras and acoustic sensor which can execute full/partial coverage of the surrounding views." ; Col. 6, lines 12-21: "The loop bandwidth is assumed to be limited [low bandwidth] by the characteristics of the electrohydraulic actuator valve in that the gyro bandwidth is about 700 Hz. Note that performance enhancement can be realized without upgrading other costly components of the automated machine. By directly measuring the end effector motion, less costly linear and angular motion sensors for various links and joints can be utilized [inexpensive]. The incorporation of the IMU also engenders a variety of autonomous/intelligent operations for automated machines [combining together]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., Dolinar, et al., and Popoola, et al. to include the teaching of Coleman, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of universal guidance and control for automated machines incorporating an inertial sensor package and the use of an object detection system (Coleman, et al. Col. 1, lines 21-55).
Claims 9-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), and Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758) in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210087794).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether the vehicle is operating within safe operating limits based at least in part on the estimated position of the end effector.
In a similar field of endeavor (excavator information processing), Yamamoto teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether the vehicle is operating within safe operating limits based at least in part on the estimated position of the end effector (Paragraph [0076]: "The controller (30) [computing device], for example, includes a load measuring part (301), a load item setting part (302), a stability degree calculating part 303 [computing device safety determination unit], a stability range setting part (304), a display control part (305), an unstable state controlling control part (306), and an instability log recording part (307) as functional parts implemented by executing one or more programs stored in the ROM or the secondary storage on the CPU." ; Paragraph [0217]: "In particular, the remote control operator, while being able to check the surroundings of the shovel (100) through an image displayed on the remote control display device (230), has difficulty in becoming aware of, for example, the pose state of the shovel (100) or an operation that does not cause the tipping of the shovel (100) [position and safe limit parameters]. In contrast, according to this example, the contents of the stability range display screen as described above are displayed on the remote control display device (230) of the remote control server (200) [estimated position of end effector], or the like. Therefore, the remote control operator can remotely control the shovel (100) while being aware of the degree of stability of the shovel (100). Therefore, it is possible to increase the safety of the shovel (100) [safe operating limits of end effector] when the shovel (100) is remotely controlled.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Yamamoto based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling an excavator based on the stability range of the machine (Yamamoto Paragraph [0005] – [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Kean, Roulston, et al., Dolinar, et al., and Yamamoto remain as applied to claim 9, in a further embodiment, teach: The end effector position estimation system of claim 9, wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether the vehicle is operating within safe operating limits based further on an estimated weight of a load carried by the end effector (Yamamoto Paragraph [0174]: "Furthermore, in this case, the controller (30) performs pose stability degree calculation [safety operating value for stable operation] based on a load acting on the distal end of the attachment (namely, the weight of the suspension load) [load carried by end effector] measured by the load measuring part (301) in response to the load measuring operation (step S102 described below).").
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to control the vehicle to prevent vehicle tip over based at least in part on the estimated position of the end effector.
In a similar field of endeavor (excavator information processing), Yamamoto teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to control the vehicle to prevent vehicle tip over based at least in part on the estimated position of the end effector (Paragraph [0085]: "Furthermore, the stability degree calculating part (303) may perform the stability degree calculation in view of a current load at the distal end of the attachment. This is because as a load acting on the distal end of the attachment increases, a tipping moment to tip the shovel (100) to the front of the upper swing structure (3) increases to increase the likelihood of the tipping of the shovel (100) [vehicle tip over measurements]. For example, the stability degree calculating part (303) performs the stability degree calculation in view of a load at the distal end of the attachment measured by the load measuring part (301). Furthermore, for example, the stability degree calculating part (303) performs the stability degree calculation in view of a load at the distal end of the attachment estimated from the setting details of the load items (for example, the type of the attachment and the earth equality of a work site) set by the load item setting part (302) [additional factors for position estimation]." ; Paragraph [0095]: "The unstable state controlling control part (306) performs the unstable state controlling control on the shovel (100) based on the calculation result of the stability degree calculating part (303) [controlling vehicle based on estimated position of end effector] . Hereinafter, this function implemented by the unstable state controlling control part (306) is referred to as "unstable state controlling control function.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Yamamoto based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling an excavator based on the stability range of the machine (Yamamoto Paragraphs [0005] – [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to prevent motion of the end effector into regions that may cause the vehicle to tip-over.
In a similar field of endeavor (excavator information processing), Yamamoto teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to prevent motion of the end effector into regions that may cause the vehicle to tip-over (Paragraph [0098]: "Furthermore, for example, the unstable state controlling control part (306) restricts the movement of the shovel (100) (the lower traveling structure (1), the upper swing structure (3), the attachment, etc.) made by the operator through the operating device (26) when the position (current position) of the distal end of the attachment departs from the stability range set by the stability range setting part (304) [restricts movement based on stability position calculation]. That is, in the instability range, the movement speed of the attachment may be set to be lower than in the stability range. Specifically, the unstable state controlling control part (306) outputs a control current to the pressure reducing valve (26V) to stop the movement of the shovel (100). At this point, operating elements whose movement is restricted include at least the attachment (the boom (4), the arm (5), and the bucket (6). This enables the unstable state controlling control part (306) to restrict the movement of the shovel (100) to prevent the tipping of the shovel (100) when the shovel (100) is more likely to tip over [prevent motion of end effector that may cause tipping].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Yamamoto based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling an excavator based on the stability range of the machine (Yamamoto Paragraphs [0005] – [0006]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach the end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to prevent motion of the end effector into a restricted region.
In a similar field of endeavor (excavator information processing), Yamamoto teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to prevent motion of the end effector into a restricted region (Paragraph [0194]: "Furthermore, for example, when a predetermined obstacle (for example, a person such as a worker, a utility pole, a material, another construction machine, or a work vehicle) is detected around the shovel (100) [end effector], a predetermined area adjoining the detected obstacle may be specified as a restriction range [prevent motion into a restricted region].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Yamamoto based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling an excavator based on the stability range of the machine (Paragraphs [0005] – [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach the method of claim 19, and further comprising: determining whether the vehicle is operating within safe operating limits based at least in part on the estimated position of the end effector.
In a similar field of endeavor (excavator information processing), Yamamoto teaches: The method of claim 19, and further comprising: determining whether the vehicle is operating within safe operating limits based at least in part on the estimated position of the end effector (Paragraph [0217]: "In particular, the remote control operator, while being able to check the surroundings of the shovel (100) through an image displayed on the remote control display device (230), has difficulty in becoming aware of, for example, the pose state of the shovel (100) or an operation that does not cause the tipping of the shovel (100) [position and safe limit parameters]. In contrast, according to this example, the contents of the stability range display screen as described above are displayed on the remote control display device (230) of the remote control server (200) [estimated position of end effector], or the like. Therefore, the remote control operator can remotely control the shovel (100) while being aware of the degree of stability of the shovel (100). Therefore, it is possible to increase the safety of the shovel (100) [safe operating limits of end effector] when the shovel (100) is remotely controlled.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et el. to include the teaching of Yamamoto based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling an excavator based on the stability range of the machine (Yamamoto Paragraphs [0005] – [0006]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), and Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758) in view of Faivre, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10066370).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. teaches: of terrain-induced disturbances (Dolinar, et al. Paragraph [0165]: "Another signal processing operation includes filtering the GPS data to eliminate unwanted signals which may be caused by vehicle vibration of known frequencies or positional impulses as the result of irregularities in roadway surface (4) (such as pot holes). The signal processors (1500a), (1500b) and (1500c) may be implemented in software contained in the signal processing program (822) [estimation method that removes influence of terrain induced vibrations/slopes] or may be implemented in hardware, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or dedicated signal processor integrated circuit, and may also be combined into one block (1500d) as shown in FIG. 9B. The main function of signal processors (1500a), (1500b) and (1500c) (or 1500d) is to minimize the variation in GPS positional data as the result of noise sources which corrupt GPS positional data [removes vibrations based on measurement signals].").
The combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. does not teach wherein the estimation method includes referencing the other measurement signals generated by the at least one other IMU on the base of the vehicle to provide a reference signal relating to upstream measurement that influence the measurement signals generated by the IMU positioned on at least one of the actuators and links of the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor (sensor fusion for implement estimation and control), Faire, et al. teaches: The end effector position estimation system of claim 1, wherein the estimation method includes referencing the other measurement signals generated by the at least one other IMU on the base of the vehicle to provide a reference signal relating to upstream measurement that influence the measurement signals generated by the IMU positioned on at least one of the actuators and links of the vehicle (Col. 7, lines 10-22: "An implement IMU (338), such as the blade IMU (116) of FIG. 1 [IMU positioned on actuators and links of vehicle], provides an acceleration (340) signal and an angular rate (342) signal, similar to the chassis IMU (322) [other IMU on base of vehicle]. […] In an embodiment, the chassis pitch angular rate (336) may also be developed using common readings from all IMUs on the machine, including implement IMUs [upstream measurement that influences IMU positioned on vehicle actuators and links].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and Dolinar, et al. to include the teaching of Faire, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the controlling of a position of an implement relative to the chassis based on an estimated position of the implement relative to the chassis using inertial measurement units (IMU) (Faire, et al. Col. 1, line 40 to Col. 2, lines 1-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement is reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The instant claims are considered allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621), Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170), and Popoola, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180281929) does not teach, anticipate, or render obvious the features of:
“and to remove an influence of terrain-induced vibrations in the measurement signals based on the other measurement signals”, as set forth in instant claim 15.
Therefore, claims 15, 17-18, and 22 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Kean, et al. teaches an effective position estimation system for an off-road vehicle (Col. 6, lines 17-22, Col. 6, lines 43-49) which has one inertial measurement unit, or IMU positioned on one of the actuators and links of the vehicle which generate measurement signals as a function of the movement of the end effector of the vehicle (Col. 7, lines 27-40 and Col. 10, lines 8-20) and a second IMU generating additional measurement signals positioned at the base of the vehicle (Col. 6, lines 57-63 and Col. 7, lines 37-40). Roulston, et al. teaches a computing device to estimate the real-time translation of each actuator based on the generated measurement signals (Col. 3, lines 31-34, Col. 5, lines 35-39, Col. 5, lines 46-50, and Col. 6 line 63 to Col. 7, line 1). Popoola, et al. teaches a laser range sensor that generates range information based on translational motion of a link of the work vehicle using a translational degree of freedom (Paragraphs [0025] – [0026]). However, when combined, they do not teach:
“and to remove an influence of terrain-induced vibrations in the measurement signals based on the other measurement signals”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see page 12, filed October 14, 2025, with respect to specific remaining claims 15, 17-18, and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 15, 17-18, and 22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that claim 1 was patentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621) in view of Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170) and further in view of Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758) because Dolinar, et al. did not disclose an estimation method that removes an influence of terrain-induced vibrations in the actuator/link IMU measurement signals based on the Base IMU measurement signals as claimed. The examiner disagrees. In Dolinar, et al., the signal processors embedded in a signal processing program implement a method which “…minimize the variation in GPS positional data as the result of noise sources which corrupt GPS positional data”, with the intent of using “…filtering the GPS data to eliminate unwanted signals which may be caused by vehicle vibration of known frequencies or positional impulses as the result of irregularities in roadway surface (4) (such as pot holes)” (Paragraph [0165]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Dolinar, et al. with Kean, et al. and Roulston, et al. because Kean teaches a vehicle-based end effector estimation system (Col. 6, lines 17-22, Col. 6, lines 43-49) with IMUs positioned on the actuators and base of the vehicle (Col. 7, lines 27-40, Col. 10, lines 8-20) and Roulston, et al. teaches a computing device to estimate a vehicle end effector position based on measurement signals (Col. 6, line 60 to Col. 7, line 1).
Applicant also asserted that claim 1 was patentable over Kean (U.S. Patent No. 11873621) in view of Roulston, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11085170) and further in view of Dolinar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180016758) because Roulston, et al. does not disclose a computing device to estimate a position of the end effector based on the actuator/link IMU measurement signals and he Base IMU measurement signals. The examiner disagrees. In Roulston, et al., the process of estimating the end effector can be applied to other locations on the work machine through the process of “…the addition of another sensor to the machine (10) other than on the implement (11) means that the implement (11) can be used to estimate the trajectory and second position if the machine (10) has the correct sensors installed” (Col. 18, lines 5-8), and therefore, the use of the methodology can be applied such that an “IMU (30) can be applied to various different machines (10)” (Col. 18, lines 20-21). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Roulston, et al. with Kean, et al. and Dolinar, et al. because Kean, et al. teaches a vehicle-based end effector estimation system (Col. 6, lines 17-22, Col. 6, lines 43-49) with IMUs positioned on the actuators and base of the vehicle (Col. 7, lines 27-40, Col. 10, lines 8-20) and Dolinar, et al. teaches an estimation method that removes an influence of terrain-induced vibrations and slopes within the measurement signals with respect to other measurement signals (Paragraph [0165]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Kean, Roulston, et al., and further in view of Dolinar, et al. reads on the claim limitations of an estimation method that removes an influence of terrain-induced vibrations in the actuator/link IMU measurement signals based on the Base IMU measurement signals and a computing device to estimate a position of the end effector based on the actuator/link IMU measurement signals and the Base IMU measurement signals, as stated in claim 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Danko (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140107832) teaches an articulated hydraulic machine containing an end effector for performing work and a control system. The control system has the ability to control the end effector for automated movement along a preselected trajectory and has a position error correction system in order to correct discrepancies between an actual and a desired end effector trajectory.
Yuan, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8352129) teaches a method for controlling a boom assembly in which a control signal is sent out which reduces the vibration of the boom assembly based on a resultant desired coordinate and the measured displacement of an actuator.
Murphy (U.S. Patent No. 9222507) teaches a structural health monitoring device containing a printed circuit board which includes a band pass filter which can eliminate low frequency structural machinery vibration signals developed in an operating environment.
Velde, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11499292) teaches a vehicle magnetorheological fluid (MRF) joystick system to control a work vehicle which detects joystick motions which increase the likelihood of work vehicle collision.
Montgomery (U.S. Patent No. 9464408) teaches an excavating machine which has the capability to locate and record a specific position underneath the surface of the earth close the machine using a laser rangefinder setup and a specific arm of a vehicle.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 Y ORTIZ can be reached on 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663