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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant corrected the identified grammatical issues, and thus the related objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) in view of Umemoto (US20090259340A1) and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1).
Regarding claim 1, Glover teaches;
An adaptive control system for a work machine for automatically controlling an attachment position during a grading operation of a surface (taught as a grading control system, paragraph 0008), the adaptive control system comprising:
a frame (taught as a frame structure, element 102, paragraph 0014);
an attachment movably coupled to the frame via a boom assembly (taught as a rear digging assemble, element 106, and a front loader assembly, element 108, paragraph 0014);
a first sensor configured to generate a first sensor signal indicative of an angle of the frame relative to the direction of gravity (taught as an inclinometer, element 216, to detect the pitch and roll of the frame structure of the loader, paragraph 0033);
a second sensor configured to generate a second sensor signal indicative of an angle of the ground-engaging attachment relative to one of the frame and the direction of gravity (taught as lift and tilt sensors, elements 212 and 214, that indicate the position of the loader bucket, paragraph 0031);
a laser receiver configured to receive a laser signal from a laser beacon (taught as a laser receiver, element 144, paragraph 0034), the laser receiver generating a height signal based on the laser signal (taught as the laser receiver communicating a signal indicative the height, paragraph 0034), the height signal indicative of a position of one of the attachment and the frame relative to the laser signal (taught as the laser receiver monitoring the height of the loader/vehicle relative to the laser plane, paragraph 0034); and
a controller having a non-transitory computer readable medium with a program instruction to grade the surface (taught as a control module, element 208, paragraph 0035, and control movement to correspond to the desired grade, 0036), the program instructions when executed causing a processor of the controller:
establish a target grade based on a desired grade of the surface (taught as a desired worksite grade, defined by the laser plane, paragraph 0026, from which movement and controls are configured relative to by the control module, paragraph 0036);
identify a position of the attachment with respect to one of the frame, the surface, and the laser signal (taught as determining the position of the load bucket relative to the laser plane/desired grade, paragraph 0035);
receive the first sensor signal from the first sensor (taught as using information from the inclinometer, paragraph 0035);
receive the second sensor signal from the second sensor (taught as using information from the lift and tilt sensors, paragraph 0035);
receive the laser signal from the laser beacon (taught as determining position relative to the laser plane, paragraph 0035);
generate a first control signal based on the height signal, the first control signal causing one or more actuators coupling the attachment to the work machine to maintain the attachment at a position corresponding to the target grade as the work machine propels (taught as controlling actuators so that the loader bucker substantially follows the desired grade, paragraph 0036). However, Glover does not explicitly teach;
generate a second control signal in the absence of the height signal, based on one of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal, wherein the second control signal is configured to maintain the attachment at a position corresponding to a historical value of a grade profile, the historical value derived from a context-aware model including one or more of a time-based average, a tolerance band, a number of grading passes, and a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Umemoto teaches; generate a second control signal based on one of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal in the absence of the height signal, the second control signal causing one or more actuators coupling the attachment to the work machine to maintain the attachment at a position corresponding to a historical value of a grade profile (taught as, upon detecting an abnormal signal state of the operation status [angles and positions of a manipulator, paragraph 0029] of the manipulator, use the previous [historical] sensor value that was determined to be valid [before an error/abnormality was detected] to generate a driving signal for a time after the determination, paragraph 0047).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use previously valid sensor data upon detecting an abnormality as taught by Umemoto in the system taught by Glover in order to improve consistency of behavior. For example, halting operations based on temporary blips can result in jarring/jolting motion, which in turn can be detrimental to safety and work performance. As suggested in Umemoto, operability can be improved by allowing operation to continue despite a temporary error (paragraph 0100), as a driving signal can be allowed for a time after an error is detected, thus reducing the risk for needing to halt or abort a procedure/action. This can further be used to dampen the effect of sensor noise on performance, as Umemoto uses such a feature to maintain control during noisy sensor data (paragraph 0147).
However, Umemoto does not explicitly teach; the historical value derived from a context-aware model including one or more of a time-based average, a tolerance band, a number of grading passes, and a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Karagiannis teaches; the historical value derived from a context-aware model including one or more of [[a time-based average]], [[a tolerance band]], [[a number of grading passes]], and on a sampling rate dependent on one of a worksite conditions or job function (taught as adjusting sensor sampling rates, such as increasing it so that enough information is captured by the sensors to characterize the environment, paragraph 0057).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sampling rates based on the operation requirements as taught by Karagiannis in the system taught by Glover in order to improve performance. As taught in Karagiannis, such a feature helps ensure that enough information is captured to characterize the environment (paragraph 0057), which can be implemented in an invention like in Glover to measure the grade profile/height of the attachment.
Regarding claim 8, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Glover does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is further configured to create a performance degradation alert signal for the grading operation after a predetermined period of time of the second control signal operating the one or more actuators .
Umemoto teaches; wherein the processor is further configured to create a performance degradation alert signal for the grading operation after a predetermined period of time of the second control signal operating the one or more actuators (taught as informing an abnormal status by a display, when using the prior detection signals, paragraph 0143).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use previously valid sensor data upon detecting an abnormality as taught by Umemoto in the system taught by Glover in order to improve consistency of behavior. For example, halting operations based on temporary blips can result in jarring/jolting motion, which in turn can be detrimental to safety and work performance. As suggested in Umemoto, operability can be improved by allowing operation to continue despite a temporary error (paragraph 0100), as a driving signal can be allowed for a time after an error is detected, thus reducing the risk for needing to halt or abort a procedure/action. This can further be used to dampen the effect of sensor noise on performance, as Umemoto uses such a feature to maintain control during noisy sensor data (paragraph 0147).
Regarding claim 10, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Glover further teaches; wherein the height signal automatically controls the height of the laser receiver to correspond to the height of the laser signal as the work machine propels (taught as controlling the laser mast/receiver to maintain it in line with the laser plane, paragraph 0024).
Regarding claims 11, 18, and 20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1, 8, and 10. Therefore, claims 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8, and 10 respectively.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) in view of Umemoto (US20090259340A1) and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1) as evidenced by Peat (US20200048870A1).
Regarding claim 2, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Glover further teaches; wherein the laser receiver comprises of a first receiver and a second receiver, wherein each receiver is located on a first laser mast and a second laser mast, respectively, the laser masts extending upwardly from a location fixed relative to the frame (taught as the laser receiver including a plurality of aligned receptors [multiple receivers], on laser mast element 109 and 112, paragraph 0024, shown in Fig 1; furthermore duplicating such receivers would be obvious to improve redundancy).
While Glover does not explicitly teach “and configured to enable differential height signal acquisition for calculating a dynamic grade profile, including a cross slope and a mainfall”, a laser system measuring a grade would include mainfall and cross slope measurements, other inventions with similar laser trackers on masts do include the capability to measure such features of the grade. For example, as evidenced by Peat, a similar laser mast system to Glover applies to simple cross slope systems and high end 3D control systems (paragraph 0026). As the claim merely requires the system to “enable” such features, the system taught by Glover would be sufficient to accomplish the claimed objective, as evidenced by Peat.
Regarding claim 3, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection), wherein the first receiver and the second receiver create a first height signal and a second height signal, respectively, the first height signal and the second height signal enabling the controller to calculate a grade profile of the attachment (taught as the laser receiver including a plurality of aligned receptors [multiple receivers], on laser mast element 109, paragraph 0024, shown in Fig 1, which indicates multiple height signals being received; furthermore duplicating such receivers would be obvious to improve redundancy).
Regarding claim 4, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). While Glover does not explicitly teach; “the controller generates a third control signal in response to a partial laser signal loss [interpreted to mean that one receiver has a false value and the other receiver has a true value, such as exemplified in paragraph 0039 of the specification], based on fusion the first sensor signal, the second sensor signal, and the remaining height signal, wherein the third control signal is configured to estimate and maintain the attachment position using predictive kinematics and historical grade profile data”, Glover does suggest the use of multiple receptors (paragraph 0024), where the receptors are used to determine position. With multiple sensors, it would be obvious to continue using functioning sensors while others are interrupted/failing as a matter of redundancy. For example, Umemoto teaches using the encoder values once they are deemed to be valid/in a normal status (paragraph 0148). Under such logic, when an encoder/sensor is working in a normal state, that encoder/sensor is used. Thus, using the control logic of Umemoto in the system taught by Glover would result in the claimed use of sensor data whilst a sensor is in a normal state, and only prevent its use when the sensors are in an abnormal state.
Regarding claims 12-14, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 2-4. Therefore, claims 12-14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-4 respectively.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) as modified by Umemoto (US20090259340A1) and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1), and further in view of Kusano (US20190077398A1).
Regarding claim 9, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Glover does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is further configured to suspend an auto control mode of maintaining the attachment for the grading operation after a predetermined time of the second control signal operating the one or more actuators.
Kusano teaches; wherein the processor is further configured to suspend an auto control mode of maintaining the attachment for the grading operation after a predetermined time of the second control signal operating the one or more actuators (taught as, upon detecting a sensor failure, using historical values to control the vehicle into an emergency stop, paragraphs 0019-0020).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to halt autonomous control as taught by Kusano in the system taught by Glover in order to improve safety. While previous/historical sensor data is capable of continuing some function to perform autonomous maneuvers, the longer it goes without current sensor data, the more errors would compound. Kusano suggests, as an example, a prediction capability/setting of 1-5 seconds for maneuvers (paragraph 0020). Additionally, having some buffer time to allow for sensors to recover from an abnormal state, such as due to temporary noise (as suggested in Umemoto, paragraph 0148), in which actions are allowed to continue, would allow for smoother operation.
Regarding claim 19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) as modified by Umemoto (US20090259340A1) and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1) and further in view of Zhdanov (US20130261902A1).
Regarding claim 21, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Glover does not explicitly teach; wherein the second control signal is generated using a sensor fusion algorithm comprising a Kalman filter that estimates attachment position based on motion tracking and historical grade profile data.
Zhdanov teaches; wherein the second control signal is generated using a sensor fusion algorithm comprising a Kalman filter that estimates attachment position based on motion tracking and historical grade profile data (taught as using Kalman filters to fuse various sets of measurements, paragraph 0061, which is used to determine accurate 3D coordinates of a blade, paragraph 0077).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kalman filters to fuse data inputs to estimate a tool position as taught by Zhdanov in the system taught by Glover to improve estimations. As suggested in Zhdanov, such filtering helps eliminate drift associated with elevation control and address error signals (paragraph 0077).
Claim(s) 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) as modified by Umemoto (US20090259340A1) and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1), and further in view of Tascione (US20180050704A1).
Regarding claim 22, Glover as modified by Umemoto and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Glover does not explicitly teach;, wherein the controller is configured to suspend auto control mode if the laser signal is unavailable for a predetermined duration and notify the operator of performance degradation.
Tascione teaches; wherein the controller is configured to suspend auto control mode if the laser signal is unavailable for a predetermined duration and notify the operator of performance degradation (taught as, upon detecting a sensor failure or fault condition, override the current plan of the autonomous vehicle control system and initiate a hand-off process to hand control of the vehicle over to a human driver, depending on the degree to which autonomous operations have been compromised, paragraph 0063).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include handoff operations based on sensor failure as suggested by Tascione in the system taught by Glover in order to improve safety in autonomous modes. Tascione teaches that any failure/fault condition with a sensor system can affect the perception and planning of an autonomous vehicle (paragraph 0002). Thus, addressing such failures that significantly impact a vehicle’s perception system, such as by handing off to a human driver, can prevent further mistakes/errors from the autonomous operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the recited prior art does not sufficiently teach the claimed material in claim 1. Specifically, that ‘in the absence of the height signal’ is not sufficiently taught in Glover and Umemoto, and that it is not obvious to combine.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the current claim language does not require anything more than a reactive framework to detecting the absence of the height signal, and the use of historical data as a replacement. In other words, Umemoto is relied on to teach such a reaction/trigger event [absence of a signal], and a mitigation technique [using historical data]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of sensor failure/absence and reactive mitigation techniques as present in Umemoto as being useful in other sensor dependent areas, such as in Glover.
Applicant further argues that the claimed features detailing maintain[ing] the attachment at a position corresponding to a historical value of the grade profile…dependent on worksite conditions or job function are not addressed.
The examiner respectfully points out the prior rejection that shows the control logic being addressed in Umemoto; specifically, that in the absence/failure of a sensor signal, historical data dependent on the job is used to continue the job function. The combination with Glover would take the idea present in Umemoto, that upon detecting the absence of a signal, use historical data to generate a driving [control] signal for a time (e.g. paragraph 0047). Karagiannis is then further addressed to add details to what a historical value includes/how it’s calculated, such as based on a sampling rate (e.g. paragraph 0057); additionally, as the claims only require “one or more of…”, Karagiannis teaching one element of to define the historical value is considered to adequately address the scope of the list provided. This also addresses job-dependent functions, as the sampling rate is modified to adequately characterize the environment (as in basic scientific measurement, choosing appropriate units are important to accurately reflect the state of the system; measuring a speed in fraction of lightspeed, for example, would be far less useful than in mph or km/hr in the context of vehicles, or in the case of Umemoto, reading miles or km vs reading mm), and would thus be an obvious modification/improvement to the system in Glover.
To reiterate; Glover teaches all the necessary equipment present in the independent claim. Umemoto and Karagiannis are then incorporated to teach various control logic for the sensor/vehicle to improve contextual behavior, such as in the absence/failure of a sensor.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that Glover’s single receiver configuration cannot perform computation for determining cross slope and mainfall, specifically with the use of separate masts.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Glover already teaches the use of multiple laser masts (elements 109 and 112, for example). Furthermore, as noted previously, duplicating such receivers/masts further would be obvious to improve redundancy. As the computations performed by Peat require/only use equipment already present in Glover, it is not persuasive that Glover, in combination with the teachings of Peat, cannot perform the calculations described.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the remarks that Peat does not teach first laser mat and second laser mat [assumed to mean mast].
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Glover is relied on to teach the multiple laser receivers [masts]. Peat is relied on to demonstrate the ability of such equipment to enable such calculations described by showing the equipment required to do so, all of which is included in Glover, and the rationale for doing so to improve surface control.
The amended claim now recites receive[ing] a differential height signal acquisition for calculating a dynamic grade profile. However, this merely requires that a differential height signal (between laser mast receivers) are required, which is covered in Glover’s structure of multiple receivers. Peat teaches that their system applies to 2D cross slope systems and 3D grade control systems, indicating the ability and detection of the laser mast to acquire such information to establish those profiles, using only the features already present in Glover. Therefore, Glover, as evidenced by Peat, sufficiently indicates that such a system would enable such profiling detail as the amended claim requires.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further determination of a position of an implement; US5951612A
For further sensor interruption, absence or failure response to use historical signals, such as dead reckoning; US20100161179A1
For further cross slope control; US20140326471A1
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights