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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/25/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 11, 13 and 20; and canceled claims 2-5. Claims 1 and 6-21 are pending and are examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/01/2025 (and incorporated by reference into the response filed on 11/25/2025) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Concerning the respective claim elements “drill control module” of claim 10 and “control module” of claim 11, Applicant argues that the Office has not met its burden in rebutting the strong presumption that the recited features do not invoke § 112(f). Applicant argues that the claim elements “drill control module” and “control module” cover broad classes of structures which persons of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand to be the names of structure performing the corresponding functions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument is conclusory and is not supported by MPEP guidance. The MPEP explicitly lays out that claim limitations which mirror the language of “module for” correspond to non-structural generic placeholders. (See MPEP 2181(I.)(A.)) Applying the MPEP’s 3-prong analysis for determining whether to apply § 112(f) interpretation, the claim elements at issue — i.e., “a drill control module programmed to assign a behavior state” and “a control module configured to operation of a tracked vehicle” — have been determined to:
use a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function;
modify the generic placeholder with functional language; and
not modify the generic placeholder with sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Accordingly, the § 112(f) interpretation of the claim elements at issue is proper. (See MPEP 2181 for detailed discussion regarding the above 3-prong analysis.)
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(b), Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered.
As to claim 13, Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/25/2025 obviate the corresponding claim rejections under § 112(b) — accordingly, the corresponding claim rejections under § 112(b) are withdrawn.
As to claim 6, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Here, Applicant argues that claimed “decelerat[ing]” would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when given its ordinary meaning. Applicant points towards dictionary definitions which define “gradual” as: “not sharply or suddenly,” “occurring or developing slowly or by small increments” and “not sudden.” Applicant additionally argues that in light of para. [0062] of the specification that the claimed gradual deceleration would be one which minimizes “kick” of the drill rig when stopping at a terminal. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a “gradual” deceleration would be a deceleration which is not abrupt or sudden such that “kick” of the drill rig is minimized.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the foregoing renders the claim at issue as definite. The claim is indefinite is because it is unclear what criteria denotes a deceleration as “gradual” as opposed to a deceleration which is not gradual. Examiner respectfully submits that the provided dictionary definitions do not adequately address this issue because it is still unclear what criteria (e.g., a threshold) would define a drill rig’s deceleration as being “not sharply/sudden[ly]” or “developing slowly or by small increments” — that is, the question of what exactly defines a gradual deceleration still persists. Likewise, it is still unclear what criteria defines a deceleration as one that minimizes kick. Given that Applicant’s specification does not appear to shed light on this matter, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what value of deceleration would constitute a “gradual” deceleration. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be defined, and the claim is therefore indefinite and rejected under § 112(b).
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues the following:
Vandapel does not teach operating modes which include behavior states that each have an associated set of behavior controls for governing control of tracks of a tracked vehicle. Rather, Vandapel’s operating modes relate to different functions to be performed by the machine that are sequential and cyclical operations for performing a task. Building on the above, Vandapel does not teach assigning a set of corrective behavior states wherein each corrective behavior state has associated behavior controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle.
Vandapel’s general operation of a tracked vehicle, which requires a continuous change in operation of respective tracks, does not analogize to the claimed Follow Path state which associated behavior controls to operate tracks of the tracked vehicle in the same direction.
Hennessy’s “skid-steering” does not analogize to the claimed Fast Turn corrective behavior state having associated behavior controls to operate tracks of a tracked vehicle in opposing directions.
Brandt’s action of moving a mower straight forward at maximum speed does not analogize to the claimed Anti-Stall corrective behavior state or associated set of controls.
James’ dynamic adjustment of controls based on determined average speed and/or intent of the driver based on accelerator pedal position does not analogize to the claimed Anti-Stall behavior state with associated set of controls.
As to claim 6, Applicant argues that Sakai is non-analogous art as it relates to control of a wheeled work vehicle, not a tracked vehicle.
As to claim 12, Applicant argues that only impermissible hindsight would result in substituting Sakai’s “target stop location” with the “post-levelling ground intersection” of Oppolzer. A PHOSITA would not have considered Oppolzer’s teaching — directed towards generating a drill hole sequence — towards control of propulsion of a tracked vehicle.
Applicant concludes that none of the additional secondary references used for the rejections of claims 7, 8 and 17-10 cure the deficiencies of Vandapel.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to the argument of claim 1, (A), Examiner respectfully submits that Vandapel discloses the same fundamental foundation of the claimed invention: performing vehicle control of a tracked vehicle based on a set of behavior states. Vandapel [0042] is of particular relevance: “For each operating mode 302 a-302 e of the machine 100, the memory 210 may store the pre-defined control data 302 in the form of data structures, algorithms, prior models, region of interest models, and on-line learner models. In embodiments herein, the processor 208 can access the control data 302 pertaining to a current operating mode of the machine 100. For example, if the machine is tramming on the job site 102 i.e., moving from one location to another, the processor 208 could access the control data 302 associated with the tramming mode 302 a based on which the controller 204 can be configured to independently control an operation of the drive system 108, the transmission system 110, the steering system 118, and the brake system 120 thereby facilitating the controller 204 in controlling a movement of the machine 100 on the job site 102.” (Emphasis added.) The foregoing analogizes directly to Applicant’s description of the claimed states at PGPUB [0053]: “Each drill control module 175 a . . . n is adapted to control behaviour of the corresponding drill rig 170 a . . . n in accordance with one of a set of predefined behaviour states. Each behaviour state is associated with a set of control behaviours. The set of behaviour controls associated with a behaviour state are designed to optimise functionality of the drill rig for each of the predefined behaviour states.” Therefore, Vandapel provides a set of behavior states, including corrective behavior states, for controlling the operation of a tracked vehicle.
As to the argument of claim 1, (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees because in addition to the ordinary understanding of how tracked vehicles perform tramming, the successful operation of tramming a tracked vehicle necessarily requires that the tracks of the tracked vehicle operate in the same direction, as otherwise the tracked vehicle would not be able to tram.
As to the argument of claim 1, (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees because Hennessey directly teaches the claimed control: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in opposing directions (“As is usual for tracked vehicles, directional control is by skid-steering, wherein the relative rotation of left and right tracks is altered to change vehicle direction” – see at least ¶ 72; see also ¶ 154.)
As to the argument of claim 1, (D), Brandt directly teaches the claimed control: a behavior state including an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle (A tracked vehicle operate in a state wherein both a “speed of the left track” and “speed of the right track” may be set at a “maximum amplitude” to move the tracked vehicle “straight ahead at maximum speed.” See at least ¶ 115.). As explained in the previous action, a PHOSITA would have recognized that Brandt’s control of operating both the left/right tracks of a tracked vehicle at maximum speed would be useful for, e.g., enabling a tracked vehicle to unstick itself from rough terrain.
As to the argument of claim 1, (E), Examiner respectfully disagrees because James teaches the general concept that anti-stall corrective behavior should be initiated when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period. A PHOSITA would have recognized that such is useful for extricating a vehicle from a stuck condition. (See James, ¶ 66.)
As to the argument of claim 6, Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument that Sakai is non-analogous art is merely conclusory. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Sakai because (1) it is well-known in the art that in normal operation (e.g., outside of, say, emergency situations), autonomous vehicles (including tracked vehicles) gradually decelerate in order to a stop; and (2) as suggested by Sakai at para. [0114], Sakai’s feature is useful for safely and accurately braking a tracked vehicle as the tracked vehicle approaches its target destination. While Examiner acknowledges that Sakai is directed towards a “dump truck 2,” such does not preclude Sakai’s invention from applying to a tracked vehicle because, as explained above, Sakai’s controls have been known to generally apply to autonomous vehicles.
As to the argument of claim 12, Examiner respectfully disagrees that only impermissible hindsight would result in substituting Sakai’s “target stop location” with the “post-levelling ground intersection” of Oppolzer. Examiner respectfully submits that the notion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered Oppolzer as relevant art is merely conclusory. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Oppolzer’s features could modify the combination of Vandapel and Sakai with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that a typical endpoint for a drill rig is a location where a drill rig will level and begin drilling; and (2) this feature is useful for ensuring that a drill rig is maneuvered to a desired site in an optimal fashion — such minimizes positional error and increases the probability of success of a drilling operation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, with a reasonable expectation of success, Oppolzer’s post-levelling ground intersection may serve as a simple substitution for Sakai’s “target stop location” because the post-levelling ground intersection serves as a target stop location for a drill rig.
As to the argument that none of the additional secondary references cited for other claims cure the deficiencies of Vandapel, Examiner respectfully submits that the argument is moot as Vandapel is not deficient in the areas argued by Applicant.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
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.
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 limitations are: “a drill control module programmed to assign” and “a control module … configured to control” in claims 10 and 11 (with dependent claims 12–19).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
Drill control module, control module: “general purpose computer, a programmed [programmable] logic controller, an embedded computer, or the like” – ¶ 46.
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 6, claim limitation “decelerate speed of the tracked vehicle in a gradual manner” is vague and indefinite. Namely, it is unclear what criteria denotes a deceleration as “gradual” as opposed to a deceleration which is not gradual. Applicant’s specification does not appear to shed light on this matter. Moreover, the ordinary understanding of “gradual” does not aid in defining a gradual deceleration in the context of the claimed invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be defined.
Accordingly, claims 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under § 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 20 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vandapel et al. (US20170315515A1; “Vandapel”).
As to claims 11 and 20, Vandapel discloses an anti-stall control system for a tracked vehicle comprising:
a control module associated with said tracked vehicle and configured to control operation of said tracked vehicle (“controller 204” – see at least ¶ 34 and FIG. 2.), said control module including:
a processor (“processor 208” – see at least ¶ 34 and FIG. 2.); and
a storage medium for storing computer programming code, said computer programming code defining a set of behavior states, each behaviour state having an associated set of behaviour controls for governing control of tracks of the tracked vehicle (“memory 210” – see at least ¶ 40 and FIG. 3.),
wherein the set of behaviour states include:
a tramming state having associated behaviour controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in the same direction (“tramming mode 302a” – see at least ¶¶ 41–42 and FIG. 3. Examiner notes that, in addition to the ordinary understanding of how tracked vehicles perform tramming, the successful operation of tramming a tracked vehicle necessarily requires that the tracks of the tracked vehicle operate in the same direction, as otherwise the tracked vehicle would not be able to tram.); and
a plurality of corrective behaviour states, wherein each behaviour state has an associated set of behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle (Machine 100 may be configured with a plurality of “operating modes,” wherein: “For each operating mode 302a-302e of the machine 100, the memory 210 may store … pre-defined control data 302” – see at least ¶¶ 40–50 and FIG. 3. As an example, the vehicle may operate in a corrective state “on the basis of detected obstacles,” wherein the vehicle is controlled to avoid said obstacles – see at least ¶ 37. NOTE: Said disclosed corrective behavior state necessarily improves the functionality of the tracked vehicle because the state improves the obstacle-avoidance capability of the tracked vehicle.), wherein the computer programming code, when executed on said processor, performs the method steps of:
changing to said tramming state, on receipt of instructions to move said tracked vehicle to a terminal position (The vehicle may operate in a “tramming mode 302 a” when desired/appropriate – see at least ¶ 42.); and
changing from the tramming state to a selected one of said corrective behaviour states when corrective state conditions associated with that corrective behaviour state are satisfied (The vehicle may operate in a corrective state “on the basis of detected obstacles,” wherein the vehicle is controlled to avoid said obstacles – see at least ¶ 37.).
As to claim 16, Vandapel discloses: wherein said tracked vehicle is a drill rig (“drill rig” – ¶ 25 and FIG. 1.).
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Hennessy et al. (US20120179322A1; “Hennessy”), in view of Brandt (US20210029872A1; “Brandt”), in view of James et al. (US20180111625A1; “James”), in view of Wang et al. (US20210291855A1; “Wang”) and in view of Ghoneim et al. (US6205391B1; “Ghoneim”).
As to claim 1, Vandapel discloses a behaviour-based propulsion control method for controlling a tracked vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
defining a set of behaviour states, each behaviour state having an associated set of behaviour controls for governing control of tracks of the tracked vehicle (Machine 100 may be a tracked “drill rig” – see at least ¶ 25 and FIG. 1. Machine 100 may be configured with a set of “operating modes,” wherein: “For each operating mode 302a-302e of the machine 100, the memory 210 may store … pre-defined control data 302” – see at least ¶¶ 40–50 and FIG. 3.), wherein said set of behaviour states includes:
a Follow Path state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction (“tramming mode 302a” – see at least ¶¶ 41–42 and FIG. 3. Examiner notes that, in addition to the ordinary understanding of how tracked vehicles perform tramming, the successful operation of tramming a tracked vehicle necessarily requires that the tracks of the tracked vehicle operate in the same direction, as otherwise the tracked vehicle would not be able to tram.), and
a set of corrective behaviour state, the corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle (Machine 100 may be configured with a plurality of “operating modes,” wherein: “For each operating mode 302a-302e of the machine 100, the memory 210 may store … pre-defined control data 302” – see at least ¶¶ 40–50 and FIG. 3. As an example, the vehicle may operate in a corrective state “on the basis of detected obstacles,” wherein the vehicle is controlled to avoid said obstacles – see at least ¶ 37. NOTE: Said disclosed corrective behavior state necessarily improves the functionality of the tracked vehicle because the state improves the obstacle-avoidance capability of the tracked vehicle.); and
assigning a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle (Machine 100 may be configured with a set of “operating modes,” wherein: “For each operating mode 302a-302e of the machine 100, the memory 210 may store … pre-defined control data 302” – see at least ¶¶ 40–50 and FIG. 3.).
Vandapel fails to explicitly disclose: a set of corrective behaviour states, wherein the set of corrective behaviour states includes at least one of: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in opposing directions.
Nevertheless, Hennessy teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in opposing directions (“As is usual for tracked vehicles, directional control is by skid-steering, wherein the relative rotation of left and right tracks is altered to change vehicle direction” – see at least ¶ 72; see also ¶ 154.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vandapel to include the feature of: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in opposing directions, as taught by Hennessy, with a reasonable expectation of success because, as Hennessey states above, it is well-known in the art that tracked vehicles turn by operating tracks in opposite directions.
The combination of Vandapel and Hennessey fails to explicitly disclose: a set of corrective behaviour states, wherein the set of corrective behaviour states includes at least one of: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of the tracked vehicle.
Nevertheless, Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle (A tracked vehicle operate in a state wherein both a “speed of the left track” and “speed of the right track” may be set at a “maximum amplitude” to move the tracked vehicle “straight ahead at maximum speed.” See at least ¶ 115.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel and Hennessey to include the feature of: a behavior state including an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle, as taught by Brandt, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that, if desired, both the left/right tracks of a tracked vehicle can be operated at maximum speed. Such is useful for, e.g., enabling a tracked vehicle to unstick itself from rough terrain.
The combination of Vandapel, Hennessey and Brandt fails to explicitly disclose: an Anti-Stall behaviour state is assigned when either a position of the tracked vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit or a tracked vehicle yaw has not changed beyond a predefined yaw change limit during a predefined anti-stall period.
Nevertheless, James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period (When a “timer has reached a threshold period of time” wherein it at least has been determined that “the average speed of the vehicle 100 is below a vehicle speed threshold,” the vehicle is determined to be “stuck”—i.e., the vehicle’s position has necessarily not moved beyond a predefined position limit (i.e., a position beyond where the vehicle is stuck)—and “a response to the stuck condition” is executed; i.e., the vehicle shifts to an Anti-Stall state. See at least ¶¶ 33–38 and FIG. 2.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel, Hennessey and Brandt with the feature of: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period, as taught by James, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for extricating a vehicle from a stuck condition. (See James, ¶ 66.)
The combination of Vandapel, Hennessey, Brandt and James fails to explicitly disclose: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded (“A curvature error is calculated based on a difference between the current steering angle and the planned steering angle. In response to determining that the curvature error is greater than a predetermined curvature threshold, the steering command is then issued to the ADV [autonomous driving vehicle] …, such that the steering angle of the ADV is adjusted in view of the planned steering angle.” See at least ¶ 17. Here, the difference between a current steering angle and a planned steering angle meets the BRI of a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a path because it represents an amount of error from the vehicle’s current yaw from a desired linear path.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period. Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel, Hennessey, Brandt and James with the feature of: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for correcting a vehicle’s trajectory when appropriate.
The combination of Vandapel, Hennessey, Brandt, James and Wang fails to explicitly disclose: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period.
Nevertheless, Ghoneim teaches: determining that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period (“The Yaw Rate Error flag (YAW-ERR FLAG) is intended to indicate whether the vehicle 10 is in a linear operating region, based on the deviation of the estimated yaw value … from the desired yaw value determined at blocks 106 or 118. This deviation, referred to herein as the yaw error … is determined at block 198 of FIG. 6 …. If the yaw error is within the threshold error, blocks 206-208 increment the Yaw Error Timer at each interrupt until the value or count reaches a predefined time designated as YETIME. At such point, the block 210 sets the YAW-ERR FLAG=1. Thus, the YAW-ERR FLAG is maintained in a reset (0) condition until a linear operating condition (based on yaw error) has been established for a predefined period of time.” Col. 4, ll. 64-67 to Col. 5, ll. 1-17; see also FIG. 6.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period. Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded. Ghoneim teaches: determining that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel, Hennessey, Brandt, James and Wang with the feature of: determining that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period, as taught by Ghoneim, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) a PHOSITA would have readily recognized that some predefined time period would be required to trigger a determination that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded, as otherwise said determination would be difficult if not impossible to perform in an appropriate manner; and (2) such is useful for appropriately determining the instance when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded, thereby aiding in executing Wang’s processing of assigning a Fast Turn behaviour state upon a predefined turn error ratio limit being exceeded.
As to claim 9, Vandapel discloses: wherein said tracked vehicle is a drill rig (“drill rig” – ¶ 25 and FIG. 1.).
As to claim 10, Vandapel discloses: wherein said drill rig is equipped with a drill control module programmed to assign said behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle and apply behavior controls associated with said assigned behavior state to operation of said drill rig (“controller 204” – see at least ¶¶ 34–37 and FIG. 2. Continuing, machine 100 may be configured with a set of “operating modes,” wherein: “For each operating mode 302a-302e of the machine 100, the memory 210 may store … pre-defined control data 302” – see at least ¶¶ 40–50 and FIG. 3.).
Claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Hennessy, in view of Brandt, in view of James, in view of Wang and in view of Ghoneim as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Sakai et al. (US20170285658A1; “Sakai”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Vandapel, Hennessy, Brandt, James, Wang and Ghoneim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said set of behavior states includes a Terminal Approach corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle to decelerate speed of the tracked vehicle in a gradual manner.
Nevertheless, Sakai teaches: a behavior state including a Terminal Approach corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate a vehicle to decelerate the speed of the vehicle in a gradual manner (As an autonomous vehicle (dump truck) approaches a target location, “the vehicle body controller 20 increases the braking force FB of the braking device 2B … whereby the dump truck 2 can be stopped at the target stop location Lp with good accuracy” – see at least ¶ 114.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period. Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded. Ghoneim teaches: determining that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period. Sakai teaches: a Terminal Approach corrective behaviour state wherein the vehicle is controlled to decelerate speed of the vehicle in a gradual manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel, Hennessy, Brandt, James, Wang and Ghoneim with the feature of: a behavior state including a Terminal Approach corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate a vehicle to decelerate the speed of the vehicle in a gradual manner, as taught by Sakai, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that in normal operation (e.g., outside of, say, emergency situations), autonomous vehicles (including tracked vehicles) gradually decelerate in order to a stop; and (2) as suggested by Sakai at para. [0114], this feature is useful for safely and accurately braking a tracked vehicle as the tracked vehicle approaches its target destination.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Hennessy, in view of Brandt, in view of James, in view of Wang and in view of Ghoneim as applied to claim 1 — further in view of McCracken et al. (US20170314331A1; “McCracken”)
As to claim 7, the combination of Vandapel, Hennessy, Brandt, James, Wang and Ghoneim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said set of behavior states includes a Match Collar corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error.
Nevertheless, McCracken teaches: a behavior state including a Match Collar corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error (A “drilling machine 32” is maneuvered such that “that a drill rod 36 of the drilling machine 32 is orientated and positioned correctly at the collar point 38” – see at least ¶ 256.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period. Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded. Ghoneim teaches: determining that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period. McCracken teaches: a Match Collar corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel, Hennessy, Brandt, James, Wang and Ghoneim with the feature of: a behavior state including a Match Collar corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error, as taught by McCracken, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for ensuring correct position and orientation of a drill rod such that collar position error is minimized. (See McCracken, ¶ 256.)
As to claim 8, the combination of Vandapel, Hennessy, Brandt, James, Wang and Ghoneim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said set of behavior states includes a Match Angle corrective state having associated behavior controls that minimize angle and collar position error.
Nevertheless, McCracken teaches: a behavior state including a Match Angle corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize angle and collar position error (A “drilling machine 32” is maneuvered such that “that a drill rod 36 of the drilling machine 32 is orientated and positioned correctly at the collar point 38” – see at least ¶ 256. Examiner notes that the foregoing control necessarily minimizes both angle and collar position error as the angle and collar position of the drill rig are orientated to the correct (i.e., error-less) position.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle, wherein said set of behaviour states includes at least behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in a same direction and at least one corrective behaviour state having associated behaviour controls for improving functionality of said tracked vehicle; wherein the method assigns a behavior state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn corrective behaviour state wherein tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated in opposing directions. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle at full speed in a direction of a present tramming path of said tracked vehicle. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period. Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded. Ghoneim teaches: determining that a predefined turn error ratio limit is exceeded for a predefined time period. McCracken teaches: a Match Collar corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error, and a Match Angle corrective behaviour state which minimizes angle and collar position error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel, Hennessy, Brandt, James, Wang and Ghoneim with the feature of: a behavior state including a Match Angle corrective behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize angle and collar position error, as taught by McCracken, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for ensuring correct position and orientation of a drill rod such that collar position error is minimized. (See McCracken, ¶ 256.)
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Sakai and in view of Oppolzer (US20160003009A1).
As to claim 12, Vandapel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein one of said corrective states is a terminal approach state, and said computer programming code, when executing on said processor, further performs: changing to a terminal approach state when said tracked vehicle is a predefined tramming distance from said terminal position.
Nevertheless, Sakai teaches: a terminal approach state, wherein a vehicle changes to the terminal approach state when said vehicle is a predefined distance from a terminal position (As an autonomous vehicle (dump truck) approaches a target location, “the vehicle body controller 20 increases the braking force FB of the braking device 2B … whereby the dump truck 2 can be stopped at the target stop location Lp with good accuracy . . . . [I]n a case where the target distance d becomes a predetermined threshold value dc, the vehicle body controller 20 causes the braking device 2B to generate the stronger braking force FB when the dump truck 2 reaches a location Lc ” – see at least ¶ 114.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Sakai teaches: a Terminal Approach state wherein the vehicle is controlled to decelerate speed of the vehicle in a gradual manner, wherein the Terminal Approach state is activated when the vehicle is within a predefined distance from a terminal position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vandapel with the feature of: a terminal approach state, wherein a vehicle changes to the terminal approach state when said vehicle is a predefined distance from a terminal position, as taught by Sakai, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that in normal operation (e.g., outside of, say, emergency situations), autonomous vehicles (including tracked vehicles) gradually decelerate in order to a stop; and (2) as suggested by Sakai at para. 114, this feature is useful for safely and accurately braking a tracked vehicle as the tracked vehicle approaches its target destination.
The combination of Vandapel and Sakai fails to explicitly disclose: wherein terminal approach state behavior controls associated with said terminal approach state utilize an estimate of post-levelling ground intersection as an endpoint of a tramming run.
Nevertheless, Oppolzer teaches: utilizing an estimate of a post-levelling ground intersection as an endpoint of a tramming run (A “drill rig 12” trams to “a hole labelled “152,” at which the drill rig “is positioned directly above the first drill hole location”—i.e., wherein the drill rig is leveled. Then, the drill rig terminates tramming and commences “a drilling operation” – see at least ¶ 66. Here, the “hole” meets the BRI of a post-levelling ground intersection because it is a point where a drill rig will stop and be level to perform drilling.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Sakai teaches: a Terminal Approach state wherein the vehicle is controlled to decelerate speed of the vehicle in a gradual manner, wherein the Terminal Approach state is activated when the vehicle is within a predefined distance from a terminal position. Oppolzer teaches: utilizing an estimate of a post-levelling ground intersection as an endpoint of a tramming run.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel and Sakai with the feature of: utilizing an estimate of a post-levelling ground intersection as an endpoint of a tramming run, as taught by Oppolzer, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that a typical endpoint for a drill rig is a location where a drill rig will level and begin drilling; and (2) this feature is useful for ensuring that a drill rig is maneuvered to a desired site in an optimal fashion—such minimizes positional error and increases the probability of success of a drilling operation.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, with a reasonable expectation of success, that Oppolzer’s post-levelling ground intersection may serve as a simple substitution for Sakai’s “target stop location” as the post-levelling ground intersection serves as a target stop location for a drill rig. Hence, it would have been obvious to implement Sakai’s terminal approach state when a drill rig is within a predefined tramming distance to exploit the above-discussed advantages of Sakai and Oppolzer; thereby yielding an improved tracked vehicle control system.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Hennessey and in view of Wang.
As to claim 13, Vandapel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein one of said corrective states is a Fast Turn State having associated behaviour controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in opposite directions, and said computer programming code, when executing on said processor, further performs: wherein fast turn state behavior controls apply opposing propel controls to tracks on opposing sides of said tracked vehicle.
Nevertheless, Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn State having associated behaviour controls that operate the tracks of the tracked vehicle in opposite directions (“As is usual for tracked vehicles, directional control is by skid-steering, wherein the relative rotation of left and right tracks is altered to change vehicle direction” – see at least ¶ 72; see also ¶ 154.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn State, wherein fast turn state behavior controls apply opposing propel controls to tracks on opposing sides of said tracked vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vandapel to include the feature of: a Fast Turn State, wherein Fast Turn State behavior controls apply opposing propel controls to tracks on opposing sides of said tracked vehicle, as taught by Hennessy, with a reasonable expectation of success because, as Hennessey states above, it is well-known in the art that tracked vehicles turn by operating tracks in opposite directions.
The combination of Vandapel and Hennessey fails to explicitly disclose: changing to said Fast Turn State when a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a tramming path exceeds a predefined turn error ratio threshold.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: changing to Fast Turn State when a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a path exceeds a predefined turn error ratio threshold (“A curvature error is calculated based on a difference between the current steering angle and the planned steering angle. In response to determining that the curvature error is greater than a predetermined curvature threshold, the steering command is then issued to the ADV [autonomous driving vehicle] …, such that the steering angle of the ADV is adjusted in view of the planned steering angle.” See at least ¶ 17. Here, the difference between a current steering angle and a planned steering angle meets the BRI of a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a path because it represents an amount of error from the vehicle’s current yaw from a desired linear path.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a Fast Turn State, wherein fast turn state behavior controls apply opposing propel controls to tracks on opposing sides of said tracked vehicle. Wang teaches: changing to a Fast Turn State when a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a path exceeds a predefined turn error ratio threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel and Hennessey with the feature of: changing to a Fast Turn State when a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a path exceeds a predefined turn error ratio threshold, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for correcting a vehicle’s trajectory when appropriate.
As to claim 14, the combination of Vandapel and Hennessey fails to explicitly disclose: changing to a preceding behavior state, once said turn error ratio no longer exceeds said predefined turn error ratio threshold.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: changing to a preceding behavior state, once said turn error ratio no longer exceeds said predefined turn error ratio threshold (“[I]t is determined whether the curvature error drops below the predetermined curvature threshold after issuing the steering command. In response to determining that the curvature error is below the predetermined curvature threshold, the throttle command to the ADV is issued.” See at least ¶ 18. Examiner notes that issuing a throttle command to the ADV meets the BRI of changing to a preceding behavior state because the autonomous vehicle changes to a behavior of following a preceding trajectory.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Hennessey teaches: a fast turn state, wherein fast turn state behavior controls apply opposing propel controls to tracks on opposing sides of said tracked vehicle. Wang teaches: changing to a fast turn state when a turn error ratio of a yaw component to a desired linear speed of a path exceeds a predefined turn error ratio threshold; and changing to a preceding behavior state, once said turn error ratio no longer exceeds said predefined turn error ratio threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel and Hennessey with the feature of: changing to a preceding behavior state, once said turn error ratio no longer exceeds said predefined turn error ratio threshold, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for correcting a vehicle’s trajectory when appropriate, and thereafter controlling the vehicle along the desired trajectory.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Brandt and in view of James.
As to claims 15 and 21, Vandapel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein Anti-Stall state behaviors associated with said Anti-Stall state command all tracks of said tracked vehicle to move at full speed in the direction of a present tramming path.
Nevertheless, Brandt teaches: wherein Anti-Stall state behaviors associated with said Anti-Stall state command all tracks of said tracked vehicle to move at full speed in the direction of a present tramming path (A tracked vehicle operate in a state wherein both a “speed of the left track” and “speed of the right track” may be set at a “maximum amplitude” to move the tracked vehicle “straight ahead at maximum speed.” See at least ¶ 115.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall state wherein the right and left tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated at maximum speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vandapel to include the feature of: wherein Anti-Stall state behaviors associated with said Anti-Stall state command all tracks of said tracked vehicle to move at full speed in the direction of a present tramming path, as taught by Brandt, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that, if desired, both the left/right tracks of a tracked vehicle can be operated at maximum speed. Such is useful for, e.g., enabling a tracked vehicle to unstick itself from rough terrain.
The combination of Vandapel and Brandt fails to explicitly disclose: changing to said Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state, when either a position of said tracked vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit or a tracked vehicle yaw has not changed beyond a predefined yaw change limit during a predefined anti-stall period.
Nevertheless, James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period (When a “timer has reached a threshold period of time” wherein it at least has been determined that “the average speed of the vehicle 100 is below a vehicle speed threshold,” the vehicle is determined to be “stuck”—i.e., the vehicle’s position has necessarily not moved beyond a predefined position limit (i.e., a position beyond where the vehicle is stuck)—and “a response to the stuck condition” is executed; i.e., the vehicle shifts to an Anti-Stall state. See at least ¶¶ 33–38 and FIG. 2.).
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Brandt teaches: an Anti-Stall state wherein the right and left tracks of the tracked vehicle are operated at maximum speed. James teaches: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a vehicle has not moved for a predetermined period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Vandapel and Brandt with the feature of: changing to an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state when a position of a vehicle has not moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period, as taught by James, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for extricating a vehicle from a stuck condition. (See James, ¶ 66.)
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Sakai and in view of Oppolzer as applied to claim 12 — further in view of McCracken.
Claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 7 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 8 as the claim recites similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claim 19 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Lundh et al. (US20180266247A1; “Lundh”).
As to claim 19, Vandapel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said control module includes a wireless transceiver for coupling said tracked vehicle to a remote drill control station.
Nevertheless, Lundh teaches: a wireless transceiver for coupling a tracked vehicle to a remote drill control station (“The control system of the drill rig 200 further comprises transceiver means 209 for receiving instructions regarding tasks to be performed and controls … drilling machine etc. to carry out the received instructions, and to allow data to be transmitted from the drill rig e.g. to a control center” – see at least ¶ 50.)
Vandapel discloses: a method for controlling a tracked vehicle, wherein a set of behavior states are provided which govern control of the tracks of the tracked vehicle. Lundh teaches a wireless transceiver for coupling a tracked vehicle to a remote drill control station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vandapel with the feature of: a wireless transceiver for coupling a tracked vehicle to a remote drill control station, as taught by Lundh, as transceivers are commonly used in the art for enabling vehicles to perform wireless communication. Indeed, Lundh’s transceiver may function as a simple substitution for Vandapel’s “communication interface 424” (Vandapel, ¶ 61) as the transceiver performs similar functions.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668