DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-21, 23-28, 36-37 and 46 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, 21, 27 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 device” in claims 1, 3, 8, 15, 16, 18, 27, 28
“control module” in claims 36 and 37
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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure:
“control device” corresponds to Fig. 6 [0082] “special or general purpose computing device”
“control module” corresponds to Fig. 10 [0129-130] “part of an electronic controller”
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 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, 13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno et al. (US 2024/0151000A1 hereinafter Takeno) in view of Kano (US 2022/0381920 A1) and Svendsen et al. (US 2007/0234492 A1 hereinafter Svendsen).
Regarding Claim 1, Takeno teaches A power machine (see at least Fig. 1A) comprising:
a main frame; (see at least Fig. 1A [0026]: the wheel loader has a vehicle body including a traveling unit and work implement wherein the vehicle body is provided with a vehicle body frame (i.e. main frame)).
a lift arm pivotally secured to the main frame, the lift arm extending in a first direction away from main frame in a fully lowered configuration so that an implement interface secured to the lift arm is spaced apart from the main frame in the first direction; (see at least Fig. 1A [0026-0034]: the work implement includes a boom, a bucket, a lift cylinder and a bucket cylinder. The boom is mounted onto the from frame and the bucket is attached to the tip of the boom. The boom swings up and down due to the extension and contraction of the lift cylinder)
an object detection system that includes an object detection sensor mounted to the power machine; (see at least Fig. 1A, 3,6, 7, 10 [0072-0078]: the detection system has rearward detection section (e.g. millimeter wave radar, camera) that is attached to the rear end of the vehicle body and detects an object to the rear of the vehicle body ) and
a control device configured to execute automatic travel operations for the power machine based on signals from the object detection sensor; (see at least Fig. 1A, 3,6, 7, 10 [0007-0008, 0072-0078]: the control section sets a deceleration using automatic braking and the automatic braking is implemented when the presence of an object is detected rearward by the rearward detection section during reverse travel)
wherein the automatic travel operations include controlling the automatic travel of the power machine along the path based on the signals from the object detection sensors, including selectively operating the power machine in an operating mode of a plurality of operating modes; and (see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: the control section is configured to set a deceleration using automatic braking when the object is detected, based on a relationship, with which the vehicle is stoppable. The control command section issues an emission command when the distance x reaches distance xc, control deceleration a when distance x reaches the automatic braking starting distance xb and stops at the distance xt from detected object M.)
It may be alleged that Takeno does not explicitly teach wherein the object detection sensor is configured to monitor a detection zone for objects along a path of automatic travel that extends in a second direction that is opposite the first direction;
wherein the detection zone extends from an apex of the detection zone located at the object detection sensor, along and around an object detection axis extending from the apex;
wherein cross-sections of the detection zone at a plurality of locations along the object detection sensor axis define corresponding shapes with lower boundaries;
wherein the object detection sensor is mounted to the power machine so that, with the power machine on level ground, a line extending through a plurality of the lower boundaries extends parallel with the level ground;
wherein selectively operating the power machine in the operating mode includes, based on the signals from the object detection sensor, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a command speed or relative to a maximum possible power machine speed, with the reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone.
Kano is directed to obstacle detection system for work vehicles, Kano teaches wherein the object detection sensor is configured to monitor a detection zone for objects along a path of automatic travel that extends in a second direction that is opposite the first direction. (see at least Fig. 2-7 [0039-0048, 0078-0097, 0113-0152]: the tractor can be caused to automatically travel in a field A along a target path P using an automatic travel system. The obstacle detection unit 85 includes a front obstacle sensor 86 for which the front side of tractor is set as an obstacle detection range (i.e. detection zone extending in the direction of travel) thereof, wherein the automatic travel control unit 23 F performs determination whether an obstacle is detected in the forward travel direction and if an obstacle is detected in the forward travel deceleration control range).
wherein the detection zone extends from an apex of the detection zone located at the object detection sensor, along and around an object detection axis extending from the apex; (see at least Fig. 3 reproduced below: As can be seen in the reproduced Fig. 3 that the detection zone c extends from an apex of the detection zone that’s located at/from object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis b extending from the apex);
wherein cross-sections of the detection zone at a plurality of locations along the object detection sensor axis define corresponding shapes with lower boundaries; (see at least Fig. 3 reproduced below: As can be seen in the reproduced Fig. 3 cross-section of the detection zone d can be defined along the detection axis b with the lower boundary e of the detection zone d); and
wherein the object detection sensor is mounted to the power machine so that, with the power machine on level ground, a line extending through a plurality of the lower boundaries extends parallel with the level ground.(see at least Fig. 3 reproduced below: the obstacle detection sensor 86 is mounted on the power machine such the upper boundary f of the detection zone c is shown as parallel with the level ground; and if the obstacle detection sensor was to mounted in a mirror method along a horizontal axis, the obstacle detection sensor in the new mounting location of the work machine produce/create a detection zone where the lower boundary g of detection zone (as shown in Fig. 3 reproduced below) is parallel with the level ground depending on a mounting height of the obstacle detection sensor and an area of interest for detection obstacle).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Examiner notes that that Takeno discloses the obstacle sensor (or other type of obstacle detection sensor may be used) is mounted on a lower part of the work machine for obstacle detection but can be mounted to other locations (see at least Fig. 10 [0075-0076]); and since Kano discloses various changes of sensing ranges and mounting configuration may be made depending on a type/model of work vehicle (in at least [0104]) and/or implementation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Takeno’s work machine to incorporate the technique of defining a detection zone extends from an apex of the detection zone located at the object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis extending from the apex; wherein a cross-section of the detection zone at any of a plurality of locations along the object detection sensor axis defines a corresponding shape with a lower boundary and mounting the object detection sensor on the power machine so that, with the power machine on level ground, a line extending from the apex through a plurality of the upper boundaries extends parallel with the level ground as taught by Kano such that Takeno’s machine mounts a sensor similar to that of Kano in a new position as shown (Takeno’s Machined Configured with Kano’s sensor at new mounting location, Fig. shown below), for example, upon discovering that the old sensor mounting/detection configuration (Fig. 10) does not provide adequate sensing range when the vehicle/tractor is brought into operation in a new environment with higher traffic (where the original work location may not have high traffic), and doing so (i.e. reconfiguring sensor location in Takeno’s Machined Configured with Kano’s sensor at new mounting location, Fig. shown below) would provide a maximum range of detection behind the vehicle to ensure tractor operation safety (and people working around it).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It may be alleged that the combination of Takeno in view of Kano does not explicitly teach wherein selectively operating the power machine in the operating mode includes, based on the signals from the object detection sensor, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a command speed or relative to a maximum possible power machine speed, with the reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone.
Svendsen is directed to autonomous robot capable of obstacle avoidance, Svendsen teaches wherein selectively operating the power machine in the operating mode includes, based on the signals from the object detection sensor, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a command speed or relative to a maximum possible power machine speed, with the reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone. ([0017-0018, 0069]: Upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, the robot may decrease the full cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning speed at a constant rate, an exponential rate, a non-linear rate, or some other rate.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno and Kano to incorporate the technique of reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone as taught by Svendsen with reasonable expectation of success to improve machine control safety and responsiveness in response to obstacle proximity.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 1,
Takeno further teaches wherein the object detection sensor includes a radar sensor. (see at least Fig. 1A, 3,6, 7, 10 [0072-0078]: the detection system has rearward detection section (e.g. millimeter wave radar, camera) that is attached to the rear end of the vehicle body and detects an object to the rear of the vehicle body)
Regarding claim 15, Takeno teaches A control system for a power machine (see at least Fig. 9 Abstract), the control system comprising:
an object detection sensor configured to monitor a detection zone for objects along a primary path of travel that extends from the power machine in a first direction that extends opposite a primary implement interface of the power machine; (see at least Fig. 1A, 3,6, 7, 10 [0072-0078]: the detection system has rearward detection section (e.g. millimeter wave radar, camera) that is attached to the rear end of the vehicle body and detects an object to the rear of the vehicle body. As can be seen in the figures, the object detection sensor monitors and detects a detection zone that extends in a direction opposite of the work implement 3) and
a control device (see at least Fig. 9) configured to execute operations including:
when the power machine is moving or is commanded to move in the first direction, receiving signals from the object detection sensor that indicate detected objects in the detection zone (see at least Fig. 11 [0073-0078, 0125-0135]: When the object information acquiring section 81 receives the information of the object within a prescribed range from the rearward detecting section 71 while it has been detected that reverse travel is being performed, the object information acquiring section 81 transmits the received information of the object to the distance calculating section 82.); and
providing an indication of the detected objects to an operator of a power machine. (see at least [0065-0071, 0125-0135]: The control command section issues the emission command to the alarm device when the distance calculated reaches the alarm control starting distance. The warning system has an alarm device and an automatic braking action notifying lamp, the alarm device issues an alarm to the operator due to a command from the control system when an obstacle has been detected to the rear of the vehicle body during reverse travel.)
controlling the automatic travel of the power machine along the primary path of the travel based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, including selectively operating the power machine in a plurality of operating modes that includes a first operating mode, (see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: the control section is configured to set a deceleration using automatic braking when the object is detected, based on a relationship, with which the vehicle is stoppable. The control command section issues an emission command when the distance x reaches distance xc, control deceleration a when distance x reaches the automatic braking starting distance xb and stops at the distance xt from detected object M.)
It may be alleged that Takeno does not explicitly teach the object detection sensor being secured to the power machine so that the detection zone extends from an apex of the detection zone located at the object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis extending from the apex,
the first operating mode including, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a commanded speed or relative to a maximum possible power machine speed, with a non-linear reduction relative to changes in distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects.
Kano is directed to obstacle detection system for work vehicles, Kano teaches the object detection sensor being secured to the power machine so that the detection zone extends from an apex of the detection zone located at the object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis extending from the apex, (see at least Fig. 3 reproduced below: As can be seen in the reproduced Fig. 3 that the detection zone c extends from an apex of the detection zone that’s located at/from object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis b extending from the apex; and cross-section of the detection zone d can be defined along the detection axis b with the lower boundary e of the detection zone d. The obstacle detection sensor 86 is mounted on the power machine such the upper boundary f of the detection zone c is shown as parallel with the level ground; and if the obstacle detection sensor was to mounted in a mirror method along a horizontal axis, the obstacle detection sensor in the new mounting location of the work machine produce/create a detection zone where the lower boundary g of detection zone (as shown in Fig. 3 reproduced below) is parallel with the level ground depending on a mounting height of the obstacle detection sensor and an area of interest for detection obstacle).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Examiner notes that that Takeno discloses the obstacle sensor (or other type of obstacle detection sensor may be used) is mounted on a lower part of the work machine for obstacle detection but can be mounted to other locations (see at least Fig. 10 [0075-0076]); and since Kano discloses various changes of sensing ranges and mounting configuration may be made depending on a type/model of work vehicle (in at least [0104]) and/or implementation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Takeno’s work machine to incorporate the technique of securing the obstacle detection sensor to the power machine so that the detection zone extends from an apex of the detection zone located at the object detection sensor, along and around an object detection sensor axis extending from the apex, with a lower edge of the detection zone extending in parallel with a level direction of the power machine as taught by Kano such that Takeno’s machine mounts a sensor similar to that of Kano in a new position as shown (Takeno’s Machined Configured with Kano’s sensor at new mounting location, Fig. shown below), for example, upon discovering that the old sensor mounting/detection configuration (Fig. 10) does not provide adequate sensing range when the vehicle/tractor is brought into operation in a new environment with higher traffic (where the original work location may not have high traffic), and doing so (i.e. reconfiguring sensor location in Takeno’s Machined Configured with Kano’s sensor at new mounting location, Fig. shown below) would provide a maximum range of detection behind the vehicle to ensure tractor operation safety (and people working around it).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It may be alleged that the combination of Takeno in view of Kano does not explicitly teach the first operating mode including, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a commanded speed or relative to a maximum possible power machine speed, with a non-linear reduction relative to changes in distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects.
Svendsen is directed to autonomous robot capable of obstacle avoidance, Svendsen teaches the first operating mode including, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, reducing a current power machine speed relative to a commanded speed or relative to a maximum possible power machine speed, with a non-linear reduction relative to changes in distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects. ([0017-0018, 0069]: Upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, the robot may decrease the full cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning speed at a constant rate, an exponential rate, a non-linear rate, or some other rate.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno and Kano to incorporate the technique of reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone as taught by Svendsen with reasonable expectation of success to improve machine control safety and responsiveness in response to obstacle proximity.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 15,
Takeno further teaches wherein the plurality of operating modes further includes a second operating mode that includes, based on the received signals that indicate the detected objects, causing the power machine to stop movement along the primary path of automatic travel. (see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: the control command section issues an emission command when the distance x reaches distance xc, control deceleration a when distance x reaches the automatic braking starting distance xb and stops at the distance xt from detected object M.)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 15,
Takeno further teaches wherein the control device is further configured to provide the indication of the detected objects by providing one or more of an auditory alert, a visual-display alert, or a tactile alert to the operator of the power machine, corresponding to at least one of the detected objects. (see at least [0065-0071]: the warning system has an alarm device and an automatic braking action notifying lamp, the alarm device issues an alarm to the operator due to a command from the control system when an obstacle has been detected to the rear of the vehicle body during reverse travel. The alarm may be a lamp, speaker for emitting a sound or displaying on a monitor).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Weston et al. (US 2023/0017327 A1 hereinafter Weston).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 1,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the object detection sensor is mounted to movable tailgate of the power machine.
Weston is directed to tailgate position management system and method for vehicles with tailgates, Weston teaches wherein the object detection sensor is mounted to movable tailgate of the power machine. (see at least Fig. 1 [0013-0018]: the tailgate has a tailgate camera (i.e. object detection sensor) for viewing behind the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of mounting the object detection sensor onto the movable tailgate of vehicle as taught by Weston with reasonable expectation of success such that the vehicle sensor can detect an object in the rear direction of a vehicle to ensure vehicular operation safety.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Weston teaches The power machine of claim 2, further comprising:
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach a tailgate position sensor;
wherein the control device is further configured to execute automatic travel operations based on the tailgate position sensor sensing a current position of the movable tailgate.
Weston is directed to tailgate position management system and method for vehicles with tailgates, Weston teaches a tailgate position sensor; (see at least Fig. 1 [0011-0020]: the vehicle can comprise a tailgate sensor to detect the position of the tailgate)
wherein the control device is further configured to execute automatic travel operations based on the tailgate position sensor sensing a current position of the movable tailgate. (see at least Fig. 1 [0011-0040]: determining that the tailgate is in a down position and selectively adjust an automatic vehicle assistance feature of the advanced driver assistance system (e.g. adjusting a rear backup assistance algorithm to account for a change of overall length of vehicle or disabling automatic assistance feature)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to provide a tailgate position sensor for sensing a current position of the movable tailgate and incorporating a technique of executing automatic assistance feature based on a position of the movable tailgate as taught by Weston with reasonable expectation of success such that the driving assist system can be modified or turned off so it does not intervene when the tailgate is down (Weston [0010-0012]) to avoid false object detection and improve user experience.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Tracy et al. (US 2020/0317148 A1 hereinafter Tracy).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 1,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the object detection sensor is mounted to a bumper of the power machine.
Tracy is directed to material handling vehicles provided with obstacle detection system, Tracy teaches wherein the object detection sensor is mounted to a bumper of the power machine. (see at least [0020-0025]: the bumper assembly provides a mounting arrangement for the object detection sensors).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of mounting the object detection sensor on a bumper of the power machine as taught by Tracy with reasonable expectation of success because doing so would provide an unobstructed field of view to maximize sensing capabilities (Tracy [0020]).
Claim(s) 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Kamoda et al. (US 2020/0130601 A1 hereinafter Kamoda).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 1,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the detection zone forms an elliptical cone.
Kamoda is directed to work vehicle equipped with obstacle detection system, Kamoda teaches wherein the detection zone forms an elliptical cone. (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0037-0039]: each obstacle sensor may have a detection range in an oval cone shape. A center line of the oval cone shapes may directed substantially perpendicularly away from the tractor)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to provide an obstacle detection sensor that forms oval cone shape detection zone as taught by Kamoda with reasonable expectation of success to obtain an appropriate detection area with reduced erroneous detection (Kamoda [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 1,
Takeno does not explicitly teach wherein the object detection sensor is a first object detection sensor defining a first detection zone that extends from a first apex at the first object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a first axis extending from the first apex;
wherein the power machine further comprises a second object detection sensor mounted to the power machine, the second object detection sensor defining a second detection zone that extends from a second apex at the second object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a second axis, the second object detection sensor being configured to monitor a second detection zone for objects along the path of automatic travel in the second direction;
wherein the control device is further configured to execute the automatic travel operations for the power machine based on signals from the second object detection sensor.
Kano is directed to obstacle detection system for work vehicles, Kano teaches wherein the control device is further configured to execute the automatic travel operations for the power machine based on signals from the second object detection sensor. (see at least Fig. 1-4,7 [0079-0090, 0209]: the front camera 81 is arranged to look down a front side of the tractor and a front obstacle detection sensor 86 for detecting obstacle in a predetermined range on the front side of the vehicle, The control unit performs automatic travel control related to the obstacle based on results of the determination and detection of the front obstacle sensors)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of executing the automatic travel operations for the power machine based on signals from first and/or second object detection sensor as taught by Kano with reasonable expectation of success to provide an obstacle detection system that can inform the user of the detected position of the obstacle and to avoid a possible collision with obstacle existing in the travel direction of the work vehicle (Kano [0008]) and doing so would improve safety of work vehicle’s operation and reduce accident.
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the object detection sensor is a first object detection sensor defining a first detection zone that extends from a first apex at the first object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a first axis extending from the first apex;
wherein the power machine further comprises a second object detection sensor mounted to the power machine, the second object detection sensor defining a second detection zone that extends from a second apex at the second object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a second axis, the second object detection sensor being configured to monitor a second detection zone for objects along the path of automatic travel in the second direction;
Kamoda is directed to work vehicle equipped with obstacle detection system, Kamoda teaches wherein the object detection sensor is a first object detection sensor defining a first detection zone that extends from a first apex at the first object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a first axis extending from the first apex; (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0029-0039]: the drawings illustrate an obstacle detection range 115b of the second front obstacle sensor wherein the second front obstacle sensor 105b may be a pair of sensors. )
wherein the power machine further comprises a second object detection sensor mounted to the power machine, the second object detection sensor defining a second detection zone that extends from a second apex at the second object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a second axis, the second object detection sensor being configured to monitor a second detection zone for objects along the path of automatic travel in the second direction; (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0029-0039]: the drawings illustrate an obstacle detection range 115b of the second front obstacle sensor wherein the second front obstacle sensor 105b may be a pair of sensors).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to provide two obstacle detection sensors on a work machine for detecting obstacles wherein the first object detection sensor defining a first detection zone that extends from a first apex at the first object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a first axis extending from the first apex and the second object detection sensor defining a second detection zone that extends from a second apex at the second object detection sensor, along and symmetrically around a second axis, the second object detection sensor being configured to monitor a second detection zone for objects along the path of automatic travel in the second direction as taught by Kamoda with reasonable expectation of success to obtain an appropriate detection area with reduced erroneous detection (Kamoda [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Kamoda teaches The power machine of claim 8,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the first detection zone overlaps with the second detection zone.
Kamoda is directed to work vehicle equipped with obstacle detection system, Kamoda teaches wherein the first detection zone overlaps with the second detection zone. (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0029-0039]: the drawings illustrate an obstacle detection range 115b of the second front obstacle sensor wherein the second front obstacle sensor 105b may be a pair of sensors).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to provide two obstacle detection sensors on a work machine for detecting obstacles such that the first detection zone overlaps with the second detection zone as taught by Kamoda with reasonable expectation of success to obtain an appropriate detection area with reduced erroneous detection (Kamoda [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Kamoda teaches The power machine of claim 9,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first axis or the second axis extends at an oblique angle relative to the path of automatic travel.
Kamoda is directed to work vehicle equipped with obstacle detection system, Kamoda teaches wherein at least one of the first axis or the second axis extends at an oblique angle relative to the path of automatic travel. (see at least Fig. 1-3: As can be seen in Fig. 3 that first and/or second axis of the detection zones from the obstacle sensor extends at an oblique angle relative to the path of the vehicle will travel.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique at mounting the obstacle detection sensor such that at least one of the first axis or the second axis extends at an oblique angle relative to the path of automatic travel as taught by Kamoda with reasonable expectation of success to obtain an appropriate detection area with reduced erroneous detection (Kamoda [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Kamoda teaches The power machine of claim 10,
the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Kamoda teaches at least one of the first or the second axis extends at an oblique angle relative to the path of travel but are both silent as to the specifics of wherein the angle is about 15 degrees. Nevertheless, mounting obstacle detection sensors such that the detection axis/line of sight is oriented at a certain angle/position including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known technique of setting/determining desired obstacle detection/monitoring zone based on different types of obstacle sensors, their corresponding properties (e.g. detection distance, adjustability, etc.) as well as their pros/cons, etc.; and further, the mounting/mating part’s properties (e.g. curved part, flat part). Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed mounting position/orientation/angle (namely the angle is about 15 degrees), use of any mounting angle, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skilled of the art. Doing so would optimized and maximized overall obstacle detection zone to ensure there’s minimum blind zone around the work vehicle to obtain an appropriate detection area with reduced erroneous detection (Kamoda [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Kamoda teaches The power machine of claim 10,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second detection zones collectively define opposed lateral boundaries of the object detection system, the opposed lateral boundaries extending outwardly from the main frame, obliquely to the path of automatic travel.
Kamoda is directed to work vehicle equipped with obstacle detection system, Kamoda teaches wherein the first and second detection zones collectively define opposed lateral boundaries of the object detection system, the opposed lateral boundaries extending outwardly from the main frame, obliquely to the path of automatic travel. (see at least Fig. 1-3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique at mounting the obstacle detection sensor such that the first and second detection zones collectively define opposed lateral boundaries of the object detection system, the opposed lateral boundaries extending outwardly from the main frame, obliquely to the path of automatic travel as taught by Kamoda with reasonable expectation of success to obtain an appropriate detection area with reduced erroneous detection (Kamoda [0004-0005]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Stellantis (“Loose Ship Park Sense Upfitter Guide”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 1,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein, with the power on the level ground, the line extending from the apex through the plurality of the lower boundaries is between 20 inches and 30 inches above the level ground.
Stellantis is directed obstacle sensor installation on a vehicle for monitoring obstacles, Stellantis teaches wherein, with the power on the level ground, the line extending from the apex through the plurality of the lower boundaries is between 20 inches and 30 inches above the level ground. (See at least Page 2: in order for the park sense system to work properly, the sensors should be between 62 and 72 centimeters (24.4 and 28.4 inches) from the ground at the completed vehicle weight. If the sensors are too close to the ground, the system my falsely detect the ground as an obstacle. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of installing the obstacle detection sensor between 20” and 30” above the level ground as taught by Stellantis with reasonable expectation of success because if the sensors are too close to the ground, the system may falsely detect the ground as an obstacle and the higher the sensor are, the taller the object must be for it to be detected (Stellantis, Page 2).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Matsuzaki (US 2019/0329764 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The power machine of claim 13,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach further comprising an ultrasonic sensor configured to detect obstacles in a non-detection zone for the radar sensor.
Matsuzaki is directed to work vehicle equipped with obstruction detection sensors, Matsuzaki teaches further comprising an ultrasonic sensor configured to detect obstacles in a non-detection zone for the radar sensor. (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0015-0030]: the vehicle body of the tractor is provided with obstruction sensors 7 that includes laser radar units 71 and ultrasonic sensor units 72. Generally, an obstruction in front of the vehicle body 1 in a travel direction is detected by one of the laser radar units 71. However, in a state where a measurement environment is determined as abnormal, as described above, one of the ultrasonic sensor units 72 detects an obstruction, instead of the laser radar units 71. As an obstruction detection distance of each of the ultrasonic sensor units 72 is short, when one of the ultrasonic sensor units 72 detects an obstruction, the tractor immediately decelerates or stops.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to provide an ultrasonic sensor for detecting obstacles in a non-detection zone for the radar sensor as taught by Matsuzaki with reasonable expectation of success because obstruction collision is securely possible when a work vehicle provided with a laser radar and an ultrasonic sensor for obstruction detection (Matsuzaki [0012]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Yu (US 2022/0161850 A1).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 18, Takeno further teaches further comprising an object detection display (see at least [0065-0071]: The alarm may be a lamp, speaker for emitting a sound or displaying on a monitor)
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to provide the indication of the detected objects to the operator by providing a visual representation on the object detection display of a location and the distance between the power machine and the one or more of the detected objects.
Yu is directed to vehicular assistance device for notifying a driver of detected obstacle during reverse driving, Yu teaches wherein the control system is configured to provide the indication of the detected objects to the operator by providing a visual representation on the object detection display of a location and the distance between the power machine and the one or more of the detected objects. (see at least Fig. 2A-3 [0055-0074]: a plurality of sensors may sense an obstacle located around the vehicle and the controller may detect the separation distance between the vehicle and the obstacle and update the separation distance in real time and may display a proximity image in the form of a pop-up)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of providing the indication of the detected objects to the operator with a visual representation on the object detection display of a location and a distance of one or more of the detected objects relative to the power machine as taught by Yu with reasonable expectation of success because doing so would improve vehicle operation safety (Yu [0010]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Kano, Svendsen and Ries et al. (US 2021/0238827 A1 hereinafter Ries).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 15,
The combination of Takeno in view of Kano and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein a range of object detection for the object detection sensor is controllable by an operator.
Ries is direct to operation-based object detection for a work vehicle, Ries teaches wherein a range of object detection for the object detection sensor is controllable by an operator. (see at least Fig. 1, 4A-5 [0045-0053]: The display 404 may provide a preview to indicate one or more zones to be ignored for object detection based on a user selection/input.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno, Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of controlling a range of object detection for the object detection sensor based on operator input as taught by Ries with reasonable expectation of success because doing so would allow an operator to identify unseen hazards near the work vehicle while suppressing unnecessary alert that may distract the operator from other more relevant alerts (Ries [0002-0004]).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Svendsen.
Regarding claim 21, Kano teaches A method of controlling a power machine with an implement interface (see at least Abstract Fig. 1), the method comprising:
automatically moving the power machine along a direction of travel opposite the implement interface; (see at least Fig. 5 [0039-0048, 0097]: the tractor 1 can be caused to automatically travel in a field A by using an automatic travel system for a work vehicle along a target path P. As can be seen in the figure, the work vehicle automatically travel in a direction opposite the implement.)
monitoring for objects within a detection zone with an object detection sensor, the detection zone extending in the direction of travel; (see at least Fig. 2-7 [0039-0048, 0078-0097, 0113-0152]: the tractor can be caused to automatically travel in a field A along a target path P using an automatic travel system. The obstacle detection unit 85 includes a front obstacle sensor 86 for which the front side of tractor is set as an obstacle detection range (i.e. detection zone extending in the direction of travel) thereof, wherein the automatic travel control unit 23 F performs determination whether an obstacle is detected in the forward travel direction and if an obstacle is detected in the forward travel deceleration control range) and
if an object is detected in the detection zone, as indicated by the object detection sensor, automatically operating the power machine in an object-detected mode, including automatically controlling travel of the power machine along the direction of travel based on further monitoring of the object using the object detection sensor. (see at least Fig. 4, 18-22 [0113-0152]: Based on the detection information of the front obstacle sensor 86 , the automatic travel control unit 23 F performs determination whether an obstacle is detected in the forward travel direction and if an obstacle is detected in the forward travel deceleration control range (Rdc of Rd1), the automatic travel control unit performs forward travel deceleration by reducing forward travel speed of the tractor. The automatic travel control unit performs forward travel stop instruction if the obstacle is detected/determined to be within a stop control range (Rsc of Rd1) of the forward travel speed control range.)
It may be alleged that Kano does not explicitly teach automatically reducing a travel velocity of the power machine non-linearly relative to changes in distance between the power machine and the object.
Svendsen is directed to autonomous robot capable of obstacle avoidance, Svendsen teaches if an object is detected in the detection zone, automatically operating the power machine in an object-detected mode, including automatically controlling travel of the power machine along the direction of travel based on further monitoring of the object using the object detection sensor, including automatically reducing a travel velocity of the power machine non-linearly relative to changes in distance between the power machine and the object. ([0017-0018, 0069]: Upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, the robot may decrease the full cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning speed at a constant rate, an exponential rate, a non-linear rate, or some other rate.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kano’s object detection system to incorporate the control technique of reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone as taught by Svendsen with reasonable expectation of success to improve machine control safety and responsiveness in response to obstacle proximity.
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Kano in view of Svendsen teaches The method of claim 21,
Kano further teaches wherein the operating in the object-detected mode includes automatically stopping the power machine based on detecting the detected object. (see at least Fig. 4, 18-22 [0113-0152]: Based on the detection information of the front obstacle sensor 86 , the automatic travel control unit 23 F performs determination whether an obstacle is detected in the forward travel direction and if an obstacle is detected in the forward travel deceleration control range (Rdc of Rd1), the automatic travel control unit performs forward travel deceleration by reducing forward travel speed of the tractor. The automatic travel control unit performs forward travel stop instruction if the obstacle is detected/determined to be within a stop control range (Rsc of Rd1) of the forward travel speed control range.)
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu (US 2016/0202351 A1).
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Kano in view of Svendsen teaches The method of claim 21, the combination of Kano in view of Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein operating the power machine in the object-detected mode is overridden based on one or more of an actual travel speed or a commanded travel speed of the power machine being at or below a speed threshold.
Uotsu is directed to obstacle detection device for work machine, Uotsu teaches wherein operating the power machine in the object-detected mode is overridden based on one or more of an actual travel speed or a commanded travel speed of the power machine being at or below a speed threshold. (see at least [0043-0044]: When the activation judging section 26 decides to activate a periphery monitoring alarm, or even when the activation judging section 34 decides to activate a distant monitoring alarm, if operation of the brake pedal by the operator is confirmed through the vehicle controller 9, the operator has already started action to avoid collision with the obstacle and thus the monitor 36 may be designed to cancel a periphery monitoring alarm or distant monitoring alarm and not give an alarm. If so, unnecessary alarms which need not be given to the operator are suppressed. That is, the alarming/warning operation (corresponds to operating the power machine in the object-detected mode) is overridden based on a determination of a commanded/actual speed (i.e. detected deceleration speed of brake pedal operation) being at or below a speed threshold (i.e. previously operating speed).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kano and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of suppressing the power machine’s object-detected mode operation based on one or more of an actual travel speed or a commanded travel speed of the power machine being at or below a speed threshold as taught by Uotsu with reasonable expectation of success to provide an obstacle detection system that can confirm whether an obstacle requires collision avoidance control and doing so would improve work efficiency by suppressing unnecessary collision avoidance control (Uotsu [0002-0006]).
Claim(s) 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Svendsen, Uotsu and Lougheed et al. (US 2014/0277962 A1 hereinafter Lougheed).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu teaches The method of claim 24,
The combination of Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu does not explicitly teach wherein the speed threshold is 25% of a maximum power machine speed.
Lougheed is directed to power machines capable of being operably coupled to implements, Lougheed teaches wherein the speed threshold is (25% ) of a maximum power machine speed. (see at least Fig. 4 [0018-0034]: certain implements of the work vehicle require specific level of operation from a loader to operate properly, including providing a sufficient but not excessive rate of hydraulic flow to the implement and/or traveling at a proper rate of speed. The implement controller instructs the machine controller via operational control information to operate the machine in a particular way such as by limiting travel speed, setting engine RPM to given maximum/minimum level thereby reducing the top speed available. That is, a speed threshold can be set as a percentage of a maximum power machine based on the type of implement and application/usage of the implement information received).
The combination of Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu teaches operating the power machine in the object-detected mode is overridden based on one or more of an actual travel speed or a commanded travel speed of the power machine being at or below a speed threshold and Lougheed discloses reducing/limiting a speed threshold be under top speed available. However, both Kano, Svendsen, Uotsu and Lougheed are silent as to the specifics of wherein the speed threshold is 25% of a maximum power machine speed. Nevertheless limiting a speed threshold to be any percentage of a maximum power machine speed including that of the claimed invention, examiner notes that since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the technique of setting speed threshold of 25%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to modified the teachings of Kano, Svendsen and Uotsu to incorporate the technique of limiting and/or reducing a top speed available of the power machine as taught by Lougheed with reasonable expectation of success because limiting a maximum power machine speed to a percentage of the maximum available speed and doing so would ensure the implements deliver their best performance at a particular travel speed or above or below a particular travel speed (Lougheed [0004]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu teaches The method of claim 24,
the combination of Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu does not explicitly teach wherein the speed threshold is 10% of a maximum power machine speed.
Lougheed is directed to power machines capable of being operably coupled to implements, Lougheed teaches wherein the speed threshold is (10% ) of a maximum power machine speed. (see at least Fig. 4 [0018-0034]: certain implements of the work vehicle require specific level of operation from a loader to operate properly, including providing a sufficient but not excessive rate of hydraulic flow to the implement and/or traveling at a proper rate of speed. The implement controller instructs the machine controller via operational control information to operate the machine in a particular way such as by limiting travel speed, setting engine RPM to given maximum/minimum level thereby reducing the top speed available. That is, a speed threshold can be set as a percentage of a maximum power machine based on the type of implement and application/usage of the implement information received).
The combination of Kano in view of Svendsen and Uotsu teaches operating the power machine in the object-detected mode is overridden based on one or more of an actual travel speed or a commanded travel speed of the power machine being at or below a speed threshold and Lougheed discloses reducing/limiting a speed threshold be under top speed available. However, both Kano, Svendsen, Uotsu and Lougheed are silent as to the specifics of wherein the speed threshold is 10% of a maximum power machine speed. Nevertheless limiting a speed threshold to be any percentage of a maximum power machine speed including that of the claimed invention, examiner notes that since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the technique of setting speed threshold of 25%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to modified the teachings of Kano, Svendsen and Uotsu to incorporate the technique of limiting and/or reducing a top speed available of the power machine as taught by Lougheed with reasonable expectation of success because limiting a maximum power machine speed to a percentage of the maximum available speed and doing so would ensure the implements deliver their best performance at a particular travel speed or above or below a particular travel speed (Lougheed [0004]).
Claim(s) 27 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Svendsen.
Regarding claim 27, Takeno teaches A control system for a power machine (see at least Fig. 9 Abstract), the control system comprising:
an object detection sensor configured to monitor a detection zone for objects along a primary path of travel; (see at least Fig. 1A, 3,6, 7, 10 [0072-0078]: the detection system has rearward detection section (e.g. millimeter wave radar, camera) that is attached to the rear end of the vehicle body and detects an object to the rear of the vehicle body.)
a control device (see at least Fig. 9) configured to execute operations including:
when the power machine is moving or is commanded to move along the primary path of travel, receiving signals from the object detection sensor that indicate detected objects in the detection zone (see at least Fig. 11 [0073-0078, 0125-0135]: When the object information acquiring section 81 receives the information of the object within a prescribed range from the rearward detecting section 71 while it has been detected that reverse travel is being performed, the object information acquiring section 81 transmits the received information of the object to the distance calculating section 82.); selecting an operation mode from among a plurality of operational modes, (see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: the control section is configured to set a deceleration using automatic braking when the object is detected, based on a relationship, with which the vehicle is stoppable. The control command section issues an emission command when the distance x reaches distance xc, control deceleration a when distance x reaches the automatic braking starting distance xb and stops at the distance xt from detected object M.)
controlling the power machine during travel along the primary path of travel based on the selected operational mode and the received signals that indicate the detected objects.(see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: The control section is configured to set a starting distance from the object for starting avoidance control for avoiding a collision with the object based on the deceleration and the speed of the vehicle body and execute the avoidance control based on a relative distance from the vehicle body to the object and the starting distance)
It may be alleged that Takeno does not explicitly teach selecting an operation mode from among a plurality of operational modes, including one or more of a first operational mode or a second operational mode that include slowing the power machine non-linearly relative to changes in distance between the power machine and the detected object;
Svendsen is directed to autonomous robot capable of obstacle avoidance, Svendsen teaches selecting an operation mode from among a plurality of operational modes, including one or more of a first operational mode or a second operational mode that include slowing the power machine non-linearly relative to changes in distance between the power machine and the detected object; ([0017-0018, 0069]: Upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, the robot may decrease the full cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning speed at a constant rate, an exponential rate, a non-linear rate, or some other rate.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeno’s work machine to incorporate the control technique of reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone as taught by Svendsen with reasonable expectation of success to improve machine control safety and responsiveness in response to obstacle proximity.
Regarding claim 46, The combination of Takeno in view of Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 27, wherein the plurality of operational modes includes:
Takeno further teaches a first operation mode configured slow the power machine to a stop when an object is detected in the detection zone; (see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: the control command section issues an emission command when the distance x reaches distance xc, control deceleration a when distance x reaches the automatic braking starting distance xb and stops at the distance xt from detected object M. )
a second operational mode configured to slow but not stop the power machine when an object is detected in the detection zone; (see at least Fig. 10-11 [0100-0135, claims 1-2]: the control command section issues an emission command when the distance x reaches distance xc, control deceleration a when distance x reaches the automatic braking starting distance xb and stops at the distance xt from detected object M. and
a third operational mode configured to provide an alert to an operator of the power machine when an object is detected in the detection zone; (see at least [0065-0071, 0125-0135]: The control command section issues the emission command to the alarm device when the distance calculated reaches the alarm control starting distance. The warning system has an alarm device and an automatic braking action notifying lamp, the alarm device issues an alarm to the operator due to a command from the control system when an obstacle has been detected to the rear of the vehicle body during reverse travel.).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Svendsen and Kim et al. (US 2021/0326611 A1 hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Takeno and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 27, The combination of Takeno and Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the control device is further configured to determine, based on operator input, one or more of:
a deceleration profile for the first or second operation mode; or
a minimum stopping distance for the first operational mode.
Kim is directed to driving assistance system for performing safe driving, Kim teaches wherein the control device is further configured to determine, based on operator input, one or more of: a deceleration profile for the first or second operation mode; or a minimum stopping distance for the first operational mode. (see at least Fig. 6A [0076-0080]: the electronic device may determine whether the host vehicle is within a threshold distance from the nearby vehicle wherein the threshold distance may mean a stop distance to avoid collision between vehicles which may be set in proportion to the present speed of the host vehicle and may be set by user.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of performing collision control based on a minimum stopping distance set up an operator as taught by Kim with reasonable expectation of success because doing so would allow personalization of vehicle operation that suits a user’s driving preference.
Claim(s) 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno in view of Oota et al. (US 2016/0200252 A1 hereinafter Oota) and Svendsen.
Regarding claim 36, Takeno teaches A control system for a power machine (see at least Fig. 9 Abstract), the control system comprising:
an object detection sensor configured to monitor a detection zone for objects along a path of travel of the power machine; (see at least Fig. 1A, 3,6, 7, 10 [0072-0078]: the detection system has rearward detection section (e.g. millimeter wave radar, camera) that is attached to the rear end of the vehicle body and detects an object to the rear of the vehicle body.)
a control module (see at least Fig. 9) configured to execute operations including:
when the power machine is moving along the path of travel, receiving signals from the object detection sensor that indicate detected objects in the detection zone, (see at least Fig. 11 [0073-0078, 0125-0135]: When the object information acquiring section 81 receives the information of the object within a prescribed range from the rearward detecting section 71 while it has been detected that reverse travel is being performed, the object information acquiring section 81 transmits the received information of the object to the distance calculating section 82.);
it may be alleged that Takeno does not explicitly teach selectively providing an alert to an operator of the power machine for one or more of the detected objects, including:
determining, based on the received signals, a direction of movement of a plurality of detected objects relative to the power machine;
providing the alert for the one or more detected objects based on the determined direction; and
selectively controlling the power machine in an operating mode that includes, based on the received signals, reducing a current power machine speed non-linearly relative to a determined distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects in the detection zone.
Oota is directed to surrounding monitoring device for work machine, Oota teaches selectively providing an alert to an operator of the power machine for one or more of the detected objects, including: (see at least Fig. 9-13 [0060-0094]: the determination unit makes a decision as to whether or not the relative position of the detected obstruction is present within a notification object region and further makes a decision as to whether or not the obstruction’s relative direction of movement is within the angular range for which is necessary to issue a notification. A notification is issued to the driver when it’s determined that the obstruction is approaching the vehicle).
determining, based on the received signals, a direction of movement of a plurality of detected objects relative to the power machine; (see at least Fig. 9-13 [0060-0094]: the determination unit makes a decision as to whether or not the relative position of the detected obstruction is present within a notification object region and further makes a decision as to whether or not the obstruction’s relative direction of movement is within the angular range for which is necessary to issue a notification. A notification is issued to the driver when it’s determined that the obstruction is approaching the vehicle). and
providing the alert for the one or more detected objects based on the determined direction. (see at least Fig. 9-13 [0060-0094]: the determination unit makes a decision as to whether or not the relative position of the detected obstruction is present within a notification object region and further makes a decision as to whether or not the obstruction’s relative direction of movement is within the angular range for which is necessary to issue a notification. A notification is issued to the driver when it’s determined that the obstruction is approaching the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the work machine of Takeno to incorporate the technique of selectively providing an alert to an operator of the power machine for one or more of the detected objects, including: determining, based on the received signals, a direction of movement of a plurality of detected objects relative to the power machine; and providing the alert for the one or more detected objects based on the determined direction as taught by Oota with reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved surrounding monitoring system and method for determining whether or not an obstruction needs to be notified to the driver based on a determination of relative movement direction of an obstruction to the vehicle (Oota [0006]) thereby improving work efficiency.
It may be alleged the combination of Takeno in view of Oota does not explicitly teach selectively controlling the power machine in an operating mode that includes, based n the received signals, reducing a current power machine speed non-linearly relative to a determined distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects in the detection zone.
Svendsen is directed to autonomous robot capable of obstacle avoidance, Svendsen teaches selectively controlling the power machine in an operating mode that includes, based on the received signals, reducing a current power machine speed non-linearly relative to a determined distance between the power machine and one or more of the detected objects in the detection zone. ([0017-0018, 0069]: Upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, the robot may decrease the full cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning speed at a constant rate, an exponential rate, a non-linear rate, or some other rate.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno and Oota to incorporate the control technique of reducing of the current power machine speed being non-linear relative to changes in detected distance between the power machine and one or more objects in the detection zone as taught by Svendsen with reasonable expectation of success to improve machine control safety and responsiveness in response to obstacle proximity.
Regarding claim 37, The combination of Takeno in view of Oota and Svendsen teaches The control system of claim 36,
The combination of Takeno in view of Svendsen does not explicitly teach wherein the control module is configured to provide a first alert based on the determined one or more directions of movement for the one or more detected objects corresponding to a decreasing distance between the one or more objects and the power machine and not to provide the first alert based on the determined one or more directions corresponding to an increasing distance between the one or more objects and the power machine.
Oota is directed to surrounding monitoring device for work machine, Oota teaches wherein the control module is configured to provide a first alert based on the determined one or more directions of movement for the one or more detected objects corresponding to a decreasing distance between the one or more objects and the power machine and not to provide the first alert based on the determined one or more directions corresponding to an increasing distance between the one or more objects and the power machine. (see at least Fig. 9-13 [0060-0094]: the determination unit makes a decision as to whether or not the relative position of the detected obstruction is present within a notification object region and further makes a decision as to whether or not the obstruction’s relative direction of movement is within the angular range for which is necessary to issue a notification. A notification is issued to the driver when it’s determined that the obstruction is approaching the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeno and Svendsen to incorporate the technique of determining whether or not to provide an alert to operator based on a determination on whether the object is approaching the work vehicle and providing an alert based on a determination thereof as taught by Oota with reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved surrounding monitoring system and method for determining whether or not an obstruction needs to be notified to the driver based on a determination of relative movement direction of an obstruction to the vehicle (Oota [0006]) thereby improving work efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667