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 .
With regards to claim 7, its prior 35 USC 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Theverapperuma et al (US Patent: 11691648, issued: Jul. 4, 2023, filed: Jul. 24, 2020) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018).
Claim(s) 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Theverapperuma et al (US Patent: 11691648, issued: Jul. 4, 2023, filed: Jul. 24, 2020) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of McGee et al (US Application: US 2021/0278860, published: Sep. 9, 2021, filed: Mar. 6, 2020).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Theverapperuma et al (US Patent: 11691648, issued: Jul. 4, 2023, filed: Jul. 24, 2020) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of Buerkel et al (US Application: US 2009/0271071, published: Oct. 29, 2009, filed: Aug. 10, 2007).
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Theverapperuma et al (US Patent: 11691648, issued: Jul. 4, 2023, filed: Jul. 24, 2020) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of Ming et al (US Application: US 2019/0138003, published: May 9, 2019, filed: Dec. 29, 2018).
Claim(s) 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Theverapperuma et al (US Patent: 11691648, issued: Jul. 4, 2023, filed: Jul. 24, 2020) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of Matsuzaki (US Application: US 2018/0206392, published: Jul. 26, 2018, filed: Jun. 19, 2017).
The following rejections remain rejected:
Claim(s) 11, 25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016)
Claim(s) 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of McGee et al (US Application: US 2021/0278860, published: Sep. 9, 2021, filed: Mar. 6, 2020).
Claim(s) 13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Buerkel et al (US Application: US 2009/0271071, published: Oct. 29, 2009, filed: Aug. 10, 2007).
Claim(s) 14 and 20-22 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Ferguson et al (US Patent: 9261881, issued: Feb. 16, 2016, filed: Aug. 1, 2013).
Claim(s) 15-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Ferguson et al (US Patent: 9261881, issued: Feb. 16, 2016, filed: Aug. 1, 2013) in view of Takeda (US Application: US 20170259819, published: Sep. 14, 2017, filed: Mar. 13, 2017).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Cullinane et al (US Application: US 2014/0156134, published: Jun. 5, 2014, filed: Dec. 3, 2013).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“’control unit’ which controls the traveling operation …” , in claim 11.
“… a ‘sidewall detection device’ which is configured such that it detects …”, in claims 11 and 13.
“an indicating device is provided for indicating …”, in claims 23 and 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim appears to contain a typographical error as it depends upon cancelled claim 3. The examiner will assume for purposes of examination, that the applicant intended claim 4 to depend upon claim 1 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claims 27 and 28 , the claims both recite “without detection of an external marking element by the ground compaction machine”. The instant application’s specification does not support actively preventing/excluding detection of external marking element(s). Instead, the specification appears to support either actively detecting ‘external markings’ and/or detecting ‘virtual markings’. Thus, the examiner suggest the applicant consider clarifying the claim to reference a supported alternative action (i.e. detecting a virtual marking), as opposed to what is currently recited in claims 27 and 28 for preventing/excluding detection of external marking elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Sturges et al (US Patent: 7076346, issued: Jul. 11, 2006, filed: Oct. 9, 2001) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018).
With regards to claim 1, Braun teaches a method for controlling the traveling operation of a self-propelled ground compaction machine with the aid of a control unit which provides travel control signals to a travel drive system of the ground compaction machine (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 10-28, column 3, lines 5-35: a ground compaction machine having ground drum(s) is implemented having a control system to drive and steer the machine), comprising: operation of the ground compaction machine in an autonomous mode, in which the control unit generates travel specifications itself and transmits the travel specifications in a form of the travel control signals to the travel drive system of the ground compaction machine (column 3, lines 5-35: travel specifications include ensuring the machine will travel a length of a trench while ensuring the machine is centered between walls of the trench) wherein operation of the ground compaction machine in the autonomous mode is … enabled by the control unit as long as a sidewall detection device of the ground compaction machine detects a presence of a sidewall projecting relative to a contact surface of the ground compaction machine, in an area in a horizontal direction transverse to a direction of travel of the ground compaction machine, and during traveling operation in the autonomous mode (column 2, lines 61-67, column 3, lines 1-35: walls are detected using sensors (such as radar, sonar and lidar) to ensure the machine is centered between the walls during autonomous control ), …; … wherein the autonomous mode is enabled only when the sidewall detection device detects, in an area horizontally transverse to the forward travel direction of the ground compaction machine, a presence of a respective sidewall projecting from the contact surface of the ground compaction machine on both sides of the ground compaction machine (column 2, lines 61-67, column 3, lines 1-35: walls (interpreted as areas horizontally transverse to direction of travel) are detected using sensors to ensure the machine is centered between the walls (interpreted as on both sides) for enabling/implementing autonomous control),
However Braun does not expressly teach autonomous mode is only enabled … as a sidewall detection device … detects the presence of a sidewall …; … in an event of an abrupt loss of detection of the presence of a sidewall by the sidewall detection device, the control unit continues traveling operation in the autonomous mode in a time- and/or distance-dependent manner, wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is stopped when the sidewall detection device detects at least one of the following scenarios: a vertical height of the detected sidewall falls below a predetermined threshold, and/or a horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in a horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine exceeds a predetermined threshold; wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is enabled when the sidewall detection device detects at least one of the following scenarios: the vertical height of the detected sidewall exceeds a predetermined threshold, and/or the horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in the horizontal direction transverse to the forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine falls below a predetermined threshold.
Yet Prasad et al teaches autonomous mode is only enabled … as a sidewall detection device … detects the presence of a sidewall …; … in an event of an abrupt loss of detection of the presence of a [side-boundary] …by the [side-boundary] … detection device, the control unit continues traveling operation in the autonomous mode in a time- and/or distance-dependent manner (paragraph 0004 and 0020: a side boundary /lane-marking is detected and autonomous lane keeping steering mode is implemented in response to the detection. Should a loss of side boundary/lane-marking be detected, autonomous lane steering still continues using a correction vector for a time dependent manner (and maintained when the side-boundary/lane-marking is detected in a subsequent location before a defined time threshold is exceeded). Exceeding the time threshold would result in manual mode operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun’s ability to implement an autonomous way to steer a compaction machine through identification tracking of side boundaries (side-wall-boundaries projecting from the ground), such that the upon loss of detection of one of the side boundaries, traveling can continue up until a time threshold dependent manner, as taught by Prasad et al. The combination would have allowed Braun to have implemented a more resilient system that can tolerate inconsistent lane markings without having to immediately disengage autonomous lane keeping (Prasad et al, paragraphs 0001 and 0002).
However the combination of Braun and Prasad et al does not expressly teach , wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is stopped when the sidewall detection device detects at least one of the following scenarios: a vertical height of the detected sidewall falls below a predetermined threshold, and a horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in a horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine exceeds a predetermined threshold; wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is enabled when the sidewall detection device detects at least one of the following scenarios: the vertical height of the detected sidewall exceeds a predetermined threshold, and the horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in the horizontal direction transverse to the forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine falls below a predetermined threshold.
Yet Sturges et al teaches wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is enabled when the sidewall detection device detects the following scenarios: the vertical height of the detected sidewall exceeds a predetermined threshold (Fig. 5, column 5, lines 5-19, column 7, lines 24-27, column 14, lines 34-42, column 18, lines 44-67: vertical height is sensed (such as via ultrasonic sensor(s)) for associated sidewall height (ceiling contacts sidewall as known in the art) and can be identified to exceeding (falling outside) of a changeable-height range, by falling within a value range that is considered no-action to vehicle height configuration for continuing autonomous path movement), and the horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in the horizontal direction transverse to the forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine falls below a predetermined threshold (column 4, lines 24-45, claim 1 of Sturges, width distance for sidewalls are identified/sensed (such as via laser or ultrasonic) as being under/within a no-collision threshold/window and the vehicle would autonomously continue along an optimal path without collision).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun and Prasad et al’s ability to implement autonomous mode based upon processing of sidewall boundary data, such that the autonomous mode can continue to be enabled based upon processing boundary data including vertical sidewall height exceeding an is contingent upon identifying and assessing height and horizontal distance/width against respective thresholds for autonomous path movement, as taught by Sturges et al. The combination would have allowed Braun and Prasad et al to have allowed a mining vehicle to navigate a mining environment autonomously and without collision(s).
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is stopped when the sidewall detection device detects at least one of the following scenarios: a vertical height of the detected sidewall falls below a predetermined threshold, and/or a horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in a horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Yet Averbuch et al teaches … wherein the traveling operation in the autonomous mode is stopped when the sidewall detection device detects at least one of the following scenarios: a vertical height of the detected sidewall falls below a predetermined threshold, and/or a horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in a horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine exceeds a predetermined threshold (paragraphs 0037, 0048, 0051, 0061, 0091, 0098, Fig. 11A, claim 1 of Averbuch et al: a horizontal distance criteria is checked to determine if the detected distance of a sidewall/divider is within the criteria or outside (exceeding) a distance criteria (the threshold). If distance is detected outside the distance criteria as opposed to within it, then it is determined that a sidewall is not validated as ‘detected’ and autonomous mode is transitioned to manual mode. If distance is detected to be within the criteria, then a sidewall/divider is considered as ‘detected’ and autonomous mode can be implemented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun, Prasad et al and Sturges et al’s ability to process boundary distance metrics data of sidewalls to determine when to apply autonomous mode, such that application of autonomous mode is withdrawn upon the processed boundary distance metrics exceeding a threshold, as taught by Averbuch et al. The combination would have allowed Braun, Prasad et al and Sturges et al to have efficiently detected and mapped dividers .. (Averbuch et al, paragraph 0001).
With regards to claim 4. The method according to claim 3, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Buerkel et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein detecting of the sidewalls on both sides of the ground compaction machine is performed alternately or simultaneously (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Braun teaches detecting sidewalls on each side of the ground compaction machine in order to keep the machine centered between walls), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein when the ground compaction machine is in the autonomous mode, the control unit stops traveling operation when the sidewall detection device no longer detects the presence of the sidewall projecting from the contact surface of the ground compaction machine (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Braun’s detection of side boundaries (boundaries projected from the ground as walls/trench-walls, were further modified such that loss of side boundar(ies) can be also detected using the teachings of Prasad), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein during traveling operation in the autonomous mode, in the event of an abrupt loss of detection of the presence of a sidewall by the sidewall detection device, the control unit continues traveling operation in autonomous mode if (and as long as) the presence of a sidewall is detected at another location (in front of/behind; other side) by the sidewall detection device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Braun , Prasad, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein with the ground compacting machine moving in a direction of travel in the autonomous mode, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination explained in the rejection of claim 1 does not expressly teach … , a reversing command, of which the direction of travel is switched to an opposite direction of travel, is generated by the control unit when: an obstacle lying in the direction of travel is detected; the end of a specified route has been reached; an external marking element detectable by the ground compacting machine by a detection device is detected; the detection of the external marking element detectable by the ground compacting machine by the detection device is interrupted; an input is made via an input device manually operated by an operator.
Yet Braun also teaches …, … , a reversing command, of which the direction of travel is switched to an opposite direction of travel, is generated by the control unit when: an obstacle lying in the direction of travel is detected; the end of a specified route has been reached; an external marking element detectable by the ground compacting machine of a detection device is detected; the detection of an external marking element detectable by the ground compacting machine by means of a detection device is interrupted; an input is made via the input device manually operated by an operator (column 3, lines 27-35: the machine can autonomously travel in a trench and then when it reaches an end of a trench route, it automatically goes in reverse to further compact the soil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun, Prasad, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al’s ability to sense side boundar(ies)/walls of a trench for autonomous travel, such that the autonomous travel would have also included logic to autonomously place the machine into reverse when reaching an end of a route, as also taught by Braun. The combination would have allowed Braun to have “improved steering of a machine’s path by using sensors to detect travel deviations” (Braun, column 2, lines 61-67).
With regards to claim 10. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Braun, Prasad, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein the control unit controls an indicating device such that: a) it is indicated whether enabling requirements for operation in autonomous mode are fulfilled, and/or b) it is indicated that enabling requirements for operation in autonomous mode are no longer met and/or c) it is indicated whether the ground compaction machine is currently being operated in autonomous mode, and/or d) it is indicated whether an active signal transmission connection to a remote control exists or no longer exists, and/or ) further operating parameters are indicated, , and/or f) the current position of the ground compaction machine is indicated (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, walls are detected on each side of the machine which controls a current position of the machine to be centered between the walls), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 26. the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches a ground compaction machine, wherein the ground compaction machine is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 28, which depends on claim 1, Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein operation of the ground compaction machine in the autonomous mode is performable without detection of an external marking element by the ground compaction machine (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, detection is performed using sensors units installed to the machine (including one or more of radar, sonar or lidar) and these technologies are known in the art as reflective technologies that image based upon signal reflection upon surface of external objects (and thus interpreted as not due to external objects/elements being ‘marked’ or modified and rather due to their surface reflecting emanated radio, sonic or light based signals originating from the corresponding radar, sonar or lidar units ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Sturges et al (US Patent: 7076346, issued: Jul. 11, 2006, filed: Oct. 9, 2001) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of McGee et al (US Application: US 2021/0278860, published: Sep. 9, 2021, filed: Mar. 6, 2020).
With regards to claim 2. The method according to claim 1, Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein the ground compaction machine … the control unit and are transmitted by the control unit in the form of the travel control signals to the travel drive system of the ground compaction machine, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … is alternatively operated in an operator mode in which travel specifications specified by an operator via a manually operable input device are transmitted to the control unit and are transmitted by the control unit in the form of the travel control signals to the travel drive system of the ground compaction machine.
Yet McGee et al teaches … is alternatively operated in an operator mode in which travel specifications specified by an operator via a manually operable input device are transmitted to the control unit and are transmitted by the control unit in the form of the travel control signals to the travel drive system of the ground compaction machine (Fig. 3: operator can switch to manual mode from auto mode, to manually move the machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al’s ability to autonomously operate a compaction machine, such that the machine can be switched to manual mode by the operator to control the machine manually, as taught by McGee. The combination would have allowed Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al to have allowed interruption of autonomous mode into manual mode, while also allowing for efficient resumption of an interrupted job when switched back to autonomous mode (McGee et al, paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Sturges et al (US Patent: 7076346, issued: Jul. 11, 2006, filed: Oct. 9, 2001) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of Ming et al (US Application: US 2019/0138003, published: May 9, 2019, filed: Dec. 29, 2018).
With regards to claim 7. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al , Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches wherein traveling operation in the autonomous mode is stopped when the sidewall detection device detects (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, autonomous mode is stopped when sidewall detection loses the sidewall for over a threshold amount of time ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach at least one of the following scenarios: the horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in the horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine falls below a predetermined threshold.
Yet Ming et al teaches at least one of the following scenarios: and/or the horizontal distance of the detected sidewall in horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the … machine falls below a predetermined threshold (paragraphs 0084, 0091 and 0097: it is determined whether road conditions such as road width being narrow would be considered to fall below what is deemed as safe (in other words ‘unsafe’), which would stop autonomous mode and switch to manual mode))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al’s ability to detect sidewall objects to determine a mode of travel (such as autonomous/manual) for a vehicle/ground-compaction machine, such that the object detected is checked for width to determine /switch to a different travel mode, as taught by Ming et al. The combination would have allowed Braun and Prasad et al to have implemented context sensitive drive switching between autonomous and manual by taking into account different driving situations (Ming et al, paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Sturges et al (US Patent: 7076346, issued: Jul. 11, 2006, filed: Oct. 9, 2001) in view of Averbuch et al (US Application: US 20190362198, published: Nov. 28, 2019, filed: May 23, 2018) in view of Matsuzaki (US Application: US 2018/0206392, published: Jul. 26, 2018, filed: Jun. 19, 2017).
With regards to claim 8. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al , Sturges et al and Averbuch et al teaches … the current direction of travel of the ground compacting machine … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein obstacles lying in and/or against current direction of travel of the ground compacting machine are detected with aid of an obstacle recognition device, wherein the control unit stops the traveling operation in the autonomous mode if an obstacle existing in and/or against the direction of travel is detected by the obstacle recognition device
However Matsuzaki teaches … wherein obstacles lying in and/or against a current direction of travel of the … machine are detected with aid of an obstacle recognition device, wherein the control unit stops the traveling operation in the autonomous mode if an obstacle existing in and/or against the direction of travel is detected by the obstacle recognition device (paragraph 0041: width of detected obstruction is detected and is compared to width of the work machine to determine if it exceeds a threshold width that would cause the machine to stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun, Prasad et al, Sturges et al and Averbuch et al’s ability to detect sidewall objects to determine a mode of travel (such as autonomous/manual) for a vehicle/ground-compaction machine, such that the object detected is checked for width to determine /switch to a different travel mode (stop) as taught by Matsuzaki. The combination would have implemented an obstruction detection method that can take into context the size of the vehicle for travel adjustment (Matsuzaki, paragraph 0002 and 0018).
Claim(s) 11, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016)
With regards to claim 11, Braun teaches a self-propelled ground compaction machine, comprising: a drive unit, via which drive energy required for traveling operation of the ground compaction machine is provided ; a ground-contacting device, via which compaction of ground takes place (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 10-28, column 3, lines 5-35: a ground compaction machine having ground drum(s) is implemented having a control system to drive and steer the machine), a control unit, which controls the traveling operation of the ground compaction machine, (column 3, lines 5-35: travel specifications include ensuring the machine will travel a length of a trench while ensuring the machine is centered between walls of the trench) a sidewall detection device which is configured such that it detects, in an area in horizontal direction transverse to a forward direction of travel of the ground compaction machine, a presence of a sidewall projecting vertically relative to a contact surface of the ground compaction machine (column 2, lines 61-67, column 3, lines 1-35: walls are detected using sensors (such as radar, sonar and lidar) to ensure the machine is centered between the walls during autonomous control ); and the control unit is configured such that the control unit controls the traveling operation of the ground compacting machine in an autonomous mode, wherein in the autonomous mode travel specifications are specified by the control unit, wherein further an enabling device is provided which enables the autonomous mode, which is configured such that the autonomous mode is … in operating situations in which the sidewall detection device detects a simultaneous presence of a sidewall located transversely to the forward direction on each of two sides of the ground compaction machine (column 2, lines 61-67, column 3, lines 1-35: walls are detected using sensors to ensure the machine is centered between the walls during autonomous control ).
However Braun does not expressly teach … or blocks the autonomous mode, … the autonomous mode is only enabled in operating situations in which the sidewall detection device detects … presence of a sidewall …
Yet Prasad et al teaches … or blocks the autonomous mode, … the autonomous mode is only enabled in operating situations in which the sidewall detection device detects … presence of a sidewall …(paragraph 0004 and 0020: a side boundary /lane-marking is detected and autonomous lane keeping steering mode is only enabled in response to the detection and within defined time threshold tolerance of detection situations. Such that autonomous lane steering still continues using a correction vector for a time dependent manner (and maintained when the side-boundary/lane-marking is detected in a subsequent location before a defined time threshold is exceeded). Exceeding the time threshold would block autonomous mode and result in manual mode operation)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun’s ability to implement an autonomous way to steer a compaction machine through tracking of side boundaries (side-wall-boundaries projecting from the ground), such that the autonomous mode is only enabled in particular operating situations in which side wall presence is detected (where the operating conditions include an amount of timed tolerance) and switched to blocked (manual operation enabled) outside the particular operation situation(s), as taught by Prasad et al. The combination would have allowed Braun to have implemented a more resilient system that can tolerate inconsistent lane markings without having to immediately disengage autonomous lane keeping (Prasad et al, paragraphs 0001 and 0002).
With regards to claim 25. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun and Prasad et al teaches wherein the ground compaction machine is a trench roller or a vibratory plate, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 27, which depends on claim 11, Braun and Prasad et al teaches wherein the autonomous mode is operable without detection of an external marking element by the ground compaction machine (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, detection is performed using sensors units installed to the machine (including one or more of radar, sonar or lidar) and these technologies are known in the art as reflective technologies that image based upon signal reflection upon surface of external objects (and thus interpreted as not due to external objects/elements being ‘marked’ or modified and rather due to their surface reflecting emanated radio, sonic or light based signals originating from the corresponding radar, sonar or lidar units ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of McGee et al (US Application: US 2021/0278860, published: Sep. 9, 2021, filed: Mar. 6, 2020).
With regards to claim 12. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun and Prasad et al teaches wherein as an alternative to the autonomous mode, the ground compaction machine can be operated in an operator mode … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11 (Braun’s autonomous mode was modified with the conditional autonomous tolerances of Prasad, which include switching to operator/manual mode), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … the ground compaction machine can be operated in an operator mode in which travel specifications are specified by an operator via a manually operable input device of the control unit.
Yet McGee et al teaches … the ground compaction machine can be operated in an operator mode in which travel specifications are specified by an operator via a manually operable input device of the control unit (Fig. 3: operator can switch to manual mode from auto mode, to manually move the machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun and Prasad et al’s ability to autonomously operate a compaction machine, such that the machine can be switched to manual mode by the operator to control the machine manually, as taught by McGee. The combination would have allowed Braun and Prasad et al to have allowed interruption of autonomous mode into manual mode, while also allowing for efficient resumption of an interrupted job when switched back to autonomous mode (McGee et al, paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 14 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Ferguson et al (US Patent: 9261881, issued: Feb. 16, 2016, filed: Aug. 1, 2013).
With regards to claim 14. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun and Prasad et al teaches wherein the sidewall detection device … … on the ground compaction machine, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach has at least one distance sensor which is arranged on the ground compaction machine such that, with regard to its viewing direction and/or its detection range, the at least one distance sensor is at least partially oriented obliquely or parallel to the horizontal plane toward the side of the ground compaction machine.
Yet Ferguson et al teaches … has at least one distance sensor which is arranged on … machine such that, with regard to its viewing direction and/or its detection range, the at least one distance sensor it is at least partially oriented obliquely or parallel to the horizontal plane toward the side of the ground compaction machine (Fig 2, Fig 5, Abstract, column 9, lines 33-44, column 11, lines 31-67: A sensor unit includes different distance based sensors including radar and also Lidar. The Lidar sensor can be used to identify a distance to specific objects and/or markers (external lane-markers) and can rotate and angle the sensing area (which is interpreted to encompass an oblique, parallel, front or back sensing angle(s) to the specific objects)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun and Prasad et al’s ability to use one or more sensors to detect boundary objects/side-wall(s), such that the sensors could have been arranged on the vehicle to obliquely sense the object(s), as taught by Ferguson et al. The combination would have allowed Braun and Prasad et al to have allowed vehicle operation in autonomous mode that can move within a lane of travel through efficient processing and identification of remission signals.
With regards to claim 20. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al and Ferguson et al teaches wherein the sidewall detection device has at least two distance sensors on at least one side of the ground compaction machine, the two distance sensors carrying out a distance measurement in a mutually different manner (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, at least two sensors used include radar and lidar, and are positioned on the top side of the vehicle/machine), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 21. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al and Ferguson et al teaches wherein at least one sensor is provided which is configured to detect an area lying in front of and/or behind the ground compaction machine in the direction of travel (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14 at least one sensor such as Lidar is used to detect an area in front or behind the vehicle/machine), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 22. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al and Ferguson et al teaches wherein a device for detecting at least one external and/or virtual marking is provided (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, external markings can be detected), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Ferguson et al (US Patent: 9261881, issued: Feb. 16, 2016, filed: Aug. 1, 2013) in view of Takeda (US Application: US 20170259819, published: Sep. 14, 2017, filed: Mar. 13, 2017).
With regards to claim 15. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al and Ferguson et al teaches wherein the sidewall detection device has at least two distance sensors, the detection ranges of which are each oriented at least partially in a direction of one of two sides of the ground compaction machine (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14 for oblique (partial) sensing direction of the side(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … which are each oriented at least partially in the direction of one of two sides of the ground compaction machine.
Yet Takeda teaches… which are each oriented at least partially in the direction of one of two sides of the ground compaction machine (Fig. 1, paragraph 0050: sensors 20-1 through 20-6) are oriented on a plurality of sides (such as front, left, right and top) of the vehicle/machine, including a sensor (20-7) that has overlapping scan area on top of other arranged sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Braun, Prasad et al and Ferguson et al’s ability to implement at least to distance sensors arranged and oriented on a ground compaction machine to detect sidewall objects, such that the two of the distance sensors could have each been oriented towards particular sides of the machine to detect the object (s), as taught by Takeda. The combination would have allowed Braun, Prasad et al and Ferguson et al to have implemented a way to safely implement self-driving through sensing of nearby objects/vehicles … in the vicinity of the vehicle (Takeda, paragraphs 0007 and 0008)
With regards to claim 16. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Ferguson et al and Takeda teaches wherein the sidewall detection device has at least one distance sensor on at least one side of the ground compaction machine, via which a distance of the ground compaction machine from a sidewall projecting next to the ground compaction machine is determinable (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 15, at least one sensor can be positioned on a side of the vehicle/machine to detect distance towards a sidewall object(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Ferguson et al and Takeda teaches wherein the sidewall detection device has at least one distance sensor on each of two sides of the ground compaction machine, via which in each case a distance of the ground compaction machine from sidewalls projecting next to the ground compaction machine on one of the two sides is determinable (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 15, at least one sensor can be positioned on each of two sides to measure distance towards a sidewall object(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Ferguson et al and Takeda teaches wherein the sidewall detection device has, on at least one side of the ground compaction machine, at least two distance sensors which are arranged relative to one another such that their detection ranges, as seen in a direction of travel of the ground compaction machine, extend at least partially one behind the other (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 15, at least one sensor can be positioned/oriented toward a front of vehicle/machine and another sensor is positioned towards back of the vehicle/machine to sense a region behind the sensor in front (see Fig. 1 of Takeda)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al, Ferguson et al and Takeda teaches wherein it has at least two distance sensors having detection regions oriented toward a side of the ground compaction machine, the distance sensors being oriented such that their detection ranges, as seen in the vertical direction of the ground compaction machine, extend at least partially one above the other (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 15, a sensor can be oriented toward a left or right side and also a top sensor can overlap in sensing range), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US Patent: US 9267245, issued: Feb. 23, 2016, filed: Oct. 17, 2014) in view of Prasad et al (US Application: US 2017/0329345, published: Nov. 16, 2017, filed: May 13, 2016) in view of Cullinane et al (US Application: US 2014/0156134, published: Jun. 5, 2014, filed: Dec. 3, 2013).
With regards to claim 23. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun and Prasad et al teaches … autonomous mode, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein an indicating device is provided for indicating at least one of the following operating parameters: autonomous mode is switched on and/or off; autonomous mode is active and/or inactive; the presence of a sidewall is currently being detected and/or not being detected; an obstacle existing in the direction of travel in front of and/or behind the ground compaction machine is detected and/or not detected; there is an active and/or inactive signal connection to a remote control.
Yet Cullinane et al teaches … wherein an indicating device is provided for indicating at least one of the following operating parameters: autonomous mode is switched on and/or off (paragraph 0096: one of the parameters received is through driver/operator input to a steering wheel to disengage an autonomous driving mode); (the same applies to operator mode) autonomous mode is active and/or inactive; the presence of a sidewall is currently being detected and/or not being detected; an obstacle existing in the direction of travel in front of and/or behind the ground compaction machine is detected and/or not detected; there is an active and/or inactive signal connection to a remote control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the combination of Braun and Prasad et al’s ability to implement a compaction machine that uses sensor(s) to detect side wall objects and implement autonomous travel based on the sensing, such that the autonomous travel can be disengage through operator input, as taught by Cullinane et al. The combination would have allowed Braun and Prasad et al to have allowed for a method of autonomous disengagement while taking into account contextual factors to account for unintentional disengagement request(s) (paragraph 0096 of Cullinane et al).
With regards to claim 24. The ground compaction machine according to claim 11, the combination of Braun, Prasad et al and Cullinane et al teaches … wherein the ground compaction machine is operable with a manually operable input device, wherein the manually operable input device has an indicating device for indicating at least one of the following operating parameters: autonomous mode is switched on and/or off; autonomous mode is active and/or inactive; the presence of a sidewall is currently being detected and/or not being detected; at least one currently determined distance to a sidewall (both sides, etc.) detected by the sidewall detection device; an obstacle existing in the direction of travel in front of and/or behind the ground compaction machine is detected and/or not detected; there is an active and/or inactive signal connection to a remote control, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 23, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation, the applicant reiterates/repeats the applicant’s previously provided reasoning for why the limitations at issue are not invoking 35 USC 112(f). Since the applicant has repeated the arguments/remarks in this latest filing and the applicant has not included any amendments that would include sufficient structure to perform the recited function associated with the generic placeholder(s), then the examiner also maintains the 35 USC 112(f) interpretations above, since each generic placeholder is still coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function (and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier)
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues with regards to the bullet item referenced as ‘A’ in the applicant’s remarks, that Prasad does not mention a trench or similar structure. In response the examiner respectfully points out that first the claim does not recite the word ‘trench’ but rather a ‘side wall’. Under the assumption that the applicant is arguing Prasad does not teach a ‘side wall’, first, the examiner points out as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Braun was already cited to use sensors to detect walls on each side of the machine (in order to keep the machine centered ‘between’ walls), these walls are functionally recognized by Braun as boundaries that affect the path/travel of Braun’s machine and as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Prasad’s teachings where introduced for the boundary processing (not for how the boundary is detected), and thus, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Braun’s ability to perform boundary processing (of side walls projecting from a ground) to determine travel operation of how a machine travels between walls such that the travel operation would augmented when certain boundary conditions are recognized (as taught by Prasad). The examiner asserts that Braun was not modified to include lane markings as alleged by the applicant, and rather as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Braun’s boundary processing is further modified with Prasad’s ability to recognize and react to a loss of boundary identification. Thus, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the references are analogous since they both are in the same field of endeavor of determining how a machine travels with respect to detected boundaries.
The applicant further argues with bullet item referenced as B in the applicant’s remarks, that Averbuch does not teach a self-propelled ground compaction machine adapted to compaction work in trenches. However the applicant is arguing the refences individually, when the combination addresses the limitations of concern (Braun was already explained in the rejection of claim 1 to teach the self propelled ground compaction that travels based upon detected side walls and Braun’s self propelled ground compaction machine has its travel operations modified by references of Prasad and Averbuch). Thus, the combination of references in claim 1 addresses the limitations of applicant’s concern (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)).
The applicant argues the prior references to do not teach the amendments of claim 1. The examiner notes that the amendments to claim 1 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and respectfully directs the applicant to the rejection of claim 1 above for an explanation for how Braun, Prasad, Sturges et al and Averbuch are now applied to teach the limitations of claim 1.
The applicant argues claim 11 has been amended to clarify sidewalls are on each of two sides of the ground compaction machine and are not taught by Braun in view of Prasad and in view of Buerkel. However this argument is not persuasive since Braun teaches detecting sidewalls on each of two sides of the ground compaction machine through sensors in order to keep machine centered between the walls (column 2, lines 61-67, column 3, lines 1-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172