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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
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, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) in view of Brabec (US20020154948A1), Yamamoto (US5875854A), Konno (US8738242B2), Shigeru (US6181999B1), 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 assembly, 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 derived from the height signal, the historical value derived from a context-aware model including a time-based average, a tolerance band, a number of grading passes, and a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Brabec teaches; generate a second control signal in the absence of the height signal (taught as detecting a primary sensor being blocked or unavailable, and switching to an alternative control mode, paragraph 0034), 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 derived from the height signal (taught as the controller automatically switching to the alternative control mode using the last known output of the alternative sensor as the set point, paragraph 0034; specifically using a sensor with laser receivers as an exemplary affected sensor, paragraph 0038; essentially, the last known sensor value corresponds to a historical grade profile)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the last historical sensor value as taught by Brabec in the system taught by Glover in order to maintain current performance in the event of sensor blockage or unavailability. As suggested by Brabec, the use of the last known output and alternate sensor/control scheme allows a system to maintain [and thus not cause an immediate error] the position of the affected side of the grading implement while the primary sensor is unavailable (paragraph 0034). Additionally, Brabec suggests that such automatic intervention would enable a response that does not degrade/depend on the operator, which would prevent the degradation of the response if the operator were unable to intervene/is delayed in intervening (paragraph 0010).
However, Brabec does not explicitly teach; the historical value derived from a context-aware model including a time-based average, a tolerance band, a number of grading passes, and a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Yamamoto teaches; a time-based average (taught as using a moving average to control a lifting blade function, column 8 lines 17-23; wherein sensor data is averaged over a specified time period, column 7 lines 56-63; this indicates a time-based moving average).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a time-based moving average for sensor measurements as taught by Yamamoto in the system taught by Glover in order to improve accuracy. Such averaging is known to help mitigate any sensor fluctuations/variations and smooth out the data.
However, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach; a tolerance band, a number of grading passes, and a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Konno teaches; a context-aware model including a tolerance band (taught as, if a disturbance is detected, discarding the new value, column 11 lines 39-41, wherein a disturbance qualifies as an invalid measurement, using a particular range defining normal operation, column 11 lines 22-26).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tolerance band [thresholds for allowed disturbance] as taught by Konno in the system taught by Glover in order to improve sensor accuracy. Such a system effectively removes outlier data from consideration. As suggested in Konno, such a method allows detection of disturbances that yield ‘invalid’ measurements from sensors (column 11 lines 17-26). To reiterate, one would combine the defined thresholds of sensor values as taught by Konno with the system taught by Glover to better detect and address invalid sensor measurements, so such measurements are not used in the operation of the machine.
However, Konno does not explicitly teach; a number of grading passes, a tolerance band, and a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Shigeru teaches; a context-aware model including a number of grading [examiner notes that “grading passes” is not used in the specification, and is thus interpreted to be “number of passes”; inclusive of a number of, a counter, a subset size of, etc. to produce an average] passes (taught as actual positions of an implement being obtained from a moving average, column 2 lines 58-62; moving averages take in a fixed subset size, corresponding to a number of grading passes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a moving average for sensor measurements as taught by Shigeru in the system taught by Glover in order to improve accuracy. As taught by Shigeru, the use of a moving average for a position/measurement enables high accuracy control (column 2 lines 58-62). To reiterate; one would combine applying a moving average to sensor data as taught by Yamamoto to the system taught by Glover as modified by Brabec, in order to smooth it out and enable high accuracy control, more stable against outlier error.
However, Shigeru does not explicitly teach; a context-aware model including a sampling rate dependent on worksite conditions or job function.
Karagiannis teaches; a context-aware model including 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. To reiterate, one would combine the concept of modifying sampling rates of a sensor, as taught by Karagiannis, with the system taught by Glover, to ensure that the sensors used in Glover capture enough information to characterize the environment.
Regarding claim 10, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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 and 20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 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 Brabec (US20020154948A1), Yamamoto (US5875854A), Konno (US8738242B2), Shigeru (US6181999B1), and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1), as evidenced by Sahm (US5951612).
Regarding claim 2, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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, Sahm teaches the use of multiple, similar laser detectors, connected to masts [as claimed and similar to Glover] (column 2 lines 52-56), which determine the angle of slope and pitch of an implement (column 2 lines 28-35)-while not explicitly a cross slope and mainfall, the slope of the implement is akin to the cross slope, and the pitch is akin to the mainfall, albeit against an implement reference frame rather than the terrain. This clearly demonstrates the ability of the laser receiver system, as taught by Glover, to perform such slope calculations based on the laser height signals.
Regarding claim 3, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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 Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, and Karagiannis teaches;
The adaptive control system of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). However, Glover does not explicitly teach; the controller generates a third control signal in response to a partial laser signal loss, based on fusing 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.
Brabec teaches; the controller generates a third control signal in response to a partial laser signal loss, based on fusing the first sensor signal, the second sensor signal, and the remaining height signal (exemplified in Figure 5; a when the right [laser height] sensor is blocked or unavailable or does not produce a valid signal, an alternate sensor, in combination with the left [laser height] sensor, is used to generate control signals, paragraph 0036),
wherein the third control signal is configured to estimate and maintain the attachment position using predictive kinematics and historical grade profile data (taught as generating control signals to minimize the deviation from the [historical] set point, paragraph 0046).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the last historical sensor value as taught by Brabec in the system taught by Glover in order to maintain current performance in the event of sensor blockage or unavailability. As suggested by Brabec, the use of the last known output and alternate sensor/control scheme allows a system to maintain [and thus not cause an immediate error] the position of the affected side of the grading implement while the primary sensor is unavailable (paragraph 0034). Additionally, Brabec suggests that such automatic intervention would enable a response that does not degrade/depend on the operator, which would prevent the degradation of the response if the operator were unable to intervene/is delayed in intervening (paragraph 0010).
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) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) in view of Brabec (US20020154948A1), Yamamoto (US5875854A), Konno (US8738242B2), Shigeru (US6181999B1), and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1), and further in view of McCain (US11982746B2).
Regarding claim 8, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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.
McCain 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, when the laser beam is not detected after a set period of time, generating an outputting an error message for notifying a user, column 7 line 65-column 8 line 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use notify a user upon detecting an abnormality after a period of time as taught by McCain in the system taught by Glover in order to improve consistency of behavior. Such a warning improves communication to a user and allows them a chance to intervene.
Regarding claim 18, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US20060123673A1) as modified by Brabec (US20020154948A1), Yamamoto (US5875854A), Konno (US8738242B2), Shigeru (US6181999B1), and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1), and further in view of Kusano (US20190077398A1).
Regarding claim 9, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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 Brabec (US20020154948A1), Yamamoto (US5875854A), Konno (US8738242B2), Shigeru (US6181999B1), and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1) and further in view of Zhdanov (US20130261902A1).
Regarding claim 21, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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 Brabec (US20020154948A1), Yamamoto (US5875854A), Konno (US8738242B2), Shigeru (US6181999B1), and Karagiannis (US20230033951A1), and further in view of Tascione (US20180050704A1).
Regarding claim 22, Glover as modified by Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, Shigeru, 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 8-9 of the remarks that the previously recited prior art does not sufficiently teach the elements of the amended independent claims.
The examiner agrees that the amendments include elements not presented in the previously recited prior art. However, a new rejection is made above in light of Brabec, Yamamoto, Konno, and Shigeru. The amendments indicate the use of general, well known mathematical techniques to modify sensor data, like time-based averaging, tolerance bands [thresholds], and sensor sampling rates based on the application. While no one source has all elements in the same document, the use of such mathematical operations on sensor data is seen to be well understood and conventional, and the combination of them into a singular model would merely result in predictable, well understood results to improve sensor data.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that the combination fails to teach the elements of claims 2-4 and 12-14.
The examiner notes that the claims do not specify the details argued. Claim 2 merely requires the physical structure of the laser masts configured to receive differential height signals (addressed above in Glover). This is for the intended use [specifically, “for”] of calculating a dynamic grade profile, including a cross slope and a mainfall. Glover provides the structure; what’s missing is the indication that such structure can accomplish the intended use. Previously, the examiner recited Peat. However, to better explain, the examiner will instead reference Sahm. Sahm teaches the use of multiple, similar laser detectors, connected to masts [as claimed and similar to Glover] (column 2 lines 52-56), which determine the angle of slope and pitch of an implement (column 2 lines 28-35)-while not explicitly a cross slope and mainfall, the slope of the implement is akin to the cross slope, and the pitch is akin to the mainfall, albeit against an implement reference frame rather than the terrain. This clearly demonstrates the ability of the laser receiver system, as taught by Glover, to perform such slope calculations based on the laser height signals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further sensor interruption, absence or failure response to use historical signals, such as dead reckoning; US20100161179A1
For further cross slope control; US20140326471A1
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