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 4/30/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 7, 10-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21. Claims 1 and 6-21 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/30/2026 have been fully considered.
As to “a drill control module programmed to assign” in claim 10, Applicant argues that the Office has not met its burden in rebutting the strong presumption that the recited feature does not invoke § 112(f). Applicant argues that the claim element “drill control module” covers 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 element at issue — i.e., “a drill control module programmed to assign a behavior state” — has 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 element at issue is proper. (See MPEP 2181 for detailed discussion regarding the above 3-prong analysis.)
As to “a control module … configured to control” in claim 11, Examiner notes that the claim specifies that the control module includes a processor and a storage medium — the foregoing constitutes sufficient structure to perform the recited functions. Accordingly, the claim interpretation under § 112(f) for this claim element is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/30/2026 obviate the claim rejections — accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(b) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 102, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 4/30/2026 have been fully considered.
As to amended claim 11, Applicant argues:
(1) Vandapel does not disclose a “non-linear state machine” with “associated links between said tramming behaviour states.” Applicant argues that Vandapel rather proceeds through programmed modes 302a-e in a pre-programmed order, without any changing between modes based on new information. Applicant argues that the foregoing differs from the claimed invention, in which modes may be switched to and from each other based on new information in a non-linear fashion.
(2) Vandapel does not disclose changing to a corrective state “when corrective state conditions are satisfied.” Again, Applicant submits that Vandapel merely follows a fixed program sequence, not condition-triggered switching to a corrective state.
(3) Vandapel discloses only a single tramming-related state, in which only tramming mode 302a relates to track control. The other modes disclosed by Vandapel are performed when the vehicle is stationary, which is insufficient to read on the claimed “tramming behaviour states” and “corrective tramming behaviour states.”
Addressing arguments (1) and (2), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The characterization of Vandapel as a sequential, fixed-order, single-entry/single-exit system is incorrect. Vandapel discloses “transition states” in which “such transition states represent a movement of the machine from one operational state to another for e.g., from a tramming mode to a drilling mode or vice-versa.” (¶ 47.) Indeed, “the processor 208 can access the control data 302 for defining a sequence of operations and a number of operations forming part of the sequence to the controller 204. Advantageously, the sequence of operations and/or a number of operations forming part of the sequence could also be modified by a remotely located user shown at R.H.S of the controller 204 in FIG. 3” — in other words, Vandapel’s control sequences are configurable and modifiable, not fixed as Applicant argues. Vandapel provides an example sequence, wherein: “[T]he machine 100 may be required to tram from one location to another between a pair of successive drilling operations (without jacking up at either of the locations). In such cases, the processor 208 could configure the controller 204 to repetitively implement control data 302 associated with the tramming mode 302 a, the articulating mode 302 d, and the drilling mode 302 c thus omitting the jacking-up operation for the machine 100.” (¶ 49.) Here, Vandapel explicitly defines non-linear state transitions (i.e., skipping modes); such cuts against the assertion that Vandapel is a sequential, fixed system. Therefore, Vandapel reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations at issue.
Addressing argument (3), the argument has been fully considered but is 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.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant follows from the same core argument as claim 11, arguing that Vandapel teaches away from a non-linear state machine because Vandapel provides a fixed, single-entry/single-exit mode sequence; inconsistent with the claimed non-linear architecture.
Applicant further argues that the cited prior art does not disclose “assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle.” Applicant distinguishes Vandapel’s para. 42’s disclosure of control data access for an already-selected mode from “assigning” a state. Applicant further contrasts Vandapel’s environment-based control with claim 1’s control based on internal vehicle parameters.
Finally, Applicant argues that the rejection constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction as there is no basis in Vandapel or the secondary references to modify Vandapel’s single-tramming-mode architecture to support multiple tramming states, making the combination internally inconsistent and hindsight driven. Separately, Applicant argues that the large number of references and associated motivations to combine required to arrive at claim 1 is in itself evidence of impermissible hindsight bias.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as penned above, Applicant’s characterization of Vandapel as a fixed, single-entry/single-exit mode sequence is incorrect. Rather, Vandapel discloses non-linear state transitions and has modifiable sequences – such reads on the BRI of the claim limitations at issue (See Vandapel ¶¶ 47, 49.)
Continuing, the combination of Vandapel and James reads on the BRI of amended limitation “assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle.” (Emphasis added.) Namely, James teaches that 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.) On the other hand, “the example stuck mode controller 126 determines whether the suck condition parameters indicate the vehicle 100 is no longer in a stuck condition. In some examples, the stuck condition parameters indicate the vehicle 100 is no longer stuck when the vehicle 100 is moving above a threshold speed (e.g., 5 mph) as determined based on the average speed of the non-driven wheels 106, 108.” (¶ 44.) Summarizing, James teaches that a tramming behaviour state is assigned based on current vehicle parameters (current vehicle operation) of a tracked vehicle. It would have been obvious to incorporate James into Vandapel with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) this feature is useful for extricating a vehicle from a stuck condition (See James, ¶ 66); and (2) assigning a tramming behavior state based on current operation of a tracked vehicle aligns with Vandapel’s architecture which is designed to assign behavior states based on obtained parameters (e.g., environmental, vehicular, etc.)
Turning to the hindsight argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees that arriving at the claimed invention would have required impermissible hindsight bias. Vandapel’s architecture accommodates multiple behavior states, including corrective behavior states, and allows for flexible, conditional mode transitions to and from other states. Following the ordinary engineering rationales penned out in the Action, impermissible hindsight bias would not have been required for a skilled artisan to arrive at the claimed invention. Finally, “Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” (MPEP 2145 V.)
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” in claim 10.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: “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. § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel et al. (US20170315515A1; “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 independent claim 1, Vandapel discloses a behaviour-based propulsion control method for controlling a tracked vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
defining a non-linear state machine having a plurality of behaviour states and associated links between said behavior states, each of said plurality of behaviour states being defined by a 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. Continuing, disclosed are “transition states” in which “such transition states represent a movement of the machine from one operational state to another for e.g., from a tramming mode to a drilling mode or vice-versa.” ¶ 47. Indeed, “the processor 208 can access the control data 302 for defining a sequence of operations and a number of operations forming part of the sequence to the controller 204. Advantageously, the sequence of operations and/or a number of operations forming part of the sequence could also be modified by a remotely located user shown at R.H.S of the controller 204 in FIG. 3” — in other words, Vandapel’s control sequences are configurable and modifiable, not fixed as Applicant argues. Vandapel provides an example sequence, wherein: “[T]he machine 100 may be required to tram from one location to another between a pair of successive drilling operations (without jacking up at either of the locations). In such cases, the processor 208 could configure the controller 204 to repetitively implement control data 302 associated with the tramming mode 302 a, the articulating mode 302 d, and the drilling mode 302 c thus omitting the jacking-up operation for the machine 100.” (¶ 49.) Here, Vandapel explicitly defines non-linear state transitions (i.e., skipping modes).), 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 states, 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 (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 plurality of tramming behaviour states,
a set of corrective tramming 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.).
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, to yield the claim limitations at issue 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. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the incorporation of at least Hennessy into Vandapel would yield a plurality of tramming states, such being useful for accounting for a variety of scenarios while tramming.
The combination of Vandapel and Hennessy fails to explicitly disclose: 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.
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.).
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:
assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle, wherein
an Anti-Stall behaviour state is assigned when the current operation of the tracked vehicle includes either a position of the tracked vehicle not having moved beyond a predefined position limit or a tracked vehicle yaw not having changed beyond a predefined yaw change limit during a predefined anti-stall period.
Nevertheless, James teaches: assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle, wherein an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state is assigned when the current operation of the tracked vehicle includes a position of a vehicle not having 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. On the other hand, “the example stuck mode controller 126 determines whether the suck condition parameters indicate the vehicle 100 is no longer in a stuck condition. In some examples, the stuck condition parameters indicate the vehicle 100 is no longer stuck when the vehicle 100 is moving above a threshold speed (e.g., 5 mph) as determined based on the average speed of the non-driven wheels 106, 108.” ¶ 44.).
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: assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle, wherein an Anti-Stall corrective behaviour state is assigned when the current operation of the tracked vehicle includes a position of a vehicle not having moved beyond a predefined position limit during a predefined anti-stall period, as taught by James, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) this feature is useful for extricating a vehicle from a stuck condition (See James, ¶ 66); and (2) assigning a tramming behavior state based on current operation of a tracked vehicle aligns with Vandapel’s architecture which is designed to assign behavior states based on obtained parameters (e.g., environmental, vehicular, etc.)
The combination of Vandapel, Hennessey, Brandt and James fails to explicitly disclose: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when the current operation of the tracked vehicle involves a predefined turn error ratio limit being exceeded.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: a Fast Turn behaviour state is assigned when the current operation of the tracked vehicle involves a predefined turn error ratio limit being 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.).
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 the current operation of the tracked vehicle involves a predefined turn error ratio limit being 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.).
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.).
The combination of Vandapel, Hennessey and Brandt fails to disclose performing the foregoing in regards to a tramming behavior state.
Nevertheless, James teaches: assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle and apply behaviour controls associated with said assigned tramming behaviour state to operation of said drill rig (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. On the other hand, “the example stuck mode controller 126 determines whether the suck condition parameters indicate the vehicle 100 is no longer in a stuck condition. In some examples, the stuck condition parameters indicate the vehicle 100 is no longer stuck when the vehicle 100 is moving above a threshold speed (e.g., 5 mph) as determined based on the average speed of the non-driven wheels 106, 108.” ¶ 44.).
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: assigning a tramming behaviour state based on a current operation of said tracked vehicle and apply behaviour controls associated with said assigned tramming behaviour state to operation of said drill rig, as taught by James, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) this feature is useful for extricating a vehicle from a stuck condition (See James, ¶ 66); and (2) assigning a tramming behavior state based on current operation of a tracked vehicle aligns with Vandapel’s architecture which is designed to assign behavior states based on obtained parameters (e.g., environmental, vehicular, etc.)
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 plurality of tramming 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.
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 (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.).
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, 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 plurality of tramming behavior states includes a Match Collar corrective tramming behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error.
Nevertheless, McCracken teaches: a behavior state including a Match Collar corrective tramming 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.).
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 tramming 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 plurality of tramming behavior states includes a Match Angle corrective tramming state having associated behavior controls that minimize angle and collar position error.
Nevertheless, McCracken teaches: a behavior state including a Match Angle corrective tramming 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.).
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 tramming 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.)
Claims 11, 16 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Nishii (US20210389771A1; “Nishii”).
As to independent claim 11, 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 non-linear state machine having a plurality of behaviour states and associated links between said behavior states, each of said plurality of behaviour states being defined by a set of behaviour controls for governing control of tracks of the tracked vehicle (“memory 210” – see at least ¶ 40 and FIG. 3. Continuing, disclosed are “transition states” in which “such transition states represent a movement of the machine from one operational state to another for e.g., from a tramming mode to a drilling mode or vice-versa.” ¶ 47. Indeed, “the processor 208 can access the control data 302 for defining a sequence of operations and a number of operations forming part of the sequence to the controller 204. Advantageously, the sequence of operations and/or a number of operations forming part of the sequence could also be modified by a remotely located user shown at R.H.S of the controller 204 in FIG. 3” — in other words, Vandapel’s control sequences are configurable and modifiable, not fixed as Applicant argues. Vandapel provides an example sequence, wherein: “[T]he machine 100 may be required to tram from one location to another between a pair of successive drilling operations (without jacking up at either of the locations). In such cases, the processor 208 could configure the controller 204 to repetitively implement control data 302 associated with the tramming mode 302 a, the articulating mode 302 d, and the drilling mode 302 c thus omitting the jacking-up operation for the machine 100.” (¶ 49.) Here, Vandapel explicitly defines non-linear state transitions (i.e., skipping modes).),
wherein the plurality 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.).
Vandapel fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of tramming behaviour states;
a plurality of corrective tramming behaviour states.
Nevertheless, Nishii teaches: a plurality of tramming behaviour states (“[W]ith the travel driving mode selection unit 56, it is possible to select one travel driving mode from six kinds of travel driving modes in total, that is, regarding the three travel driving modes of the four-wheel travel driving mode, the two-wheel travel driving mode, and the double-speed travel driving mode, there are travel driving modes in a state where the automatic braking is ON and travel driving modes in a state where the automatic braking is OFF.” ¶ 69. See also ¶ 7.).
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 plurality of tramming behaviour states, as taught by Nishii, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to provide an automatic travel system with which it is possible to generate a target travel path according to a travel driving mode, to improve the work efficiency, and to make a work vehicle automatically travel in a state where turning traveling can be performed with a proper turning radius according to the travel driving mode.” (Nishii, ¶ 8.) More generally, Nishii’s feature is useful for providing improved functionality of a tracked vehicle in response to variable scenarios in which a tracked vehicle may operate in.
Independent claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 11 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 16, Vandapel discloses: wherein said tracked vehicle is a drill rig (“drill rig” – ¶ 25 and FIG. 1.).
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Nishii as applied to claim 11 – further in view of Sakai and in view of Oppolzer (US20160003009A1; “Oppolzer”).
As to claim 12, the combination of Vandapel and Nishii 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.).
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 Nishii 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, Nishii 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.).
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, Nishii 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 Nishii as applied to claim 11 – further in view of Hennessey and in view of Wang.
As to claim 13, the combination of Vandapel and Nishii fails to explicitly disclose: wherein one of said corrective tramming behaviour 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.).
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 Nishii 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, Nishii 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.).
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, Nishii 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, Nishii and Hennessey fails to explicitly disclose: changing to a preceding tramming behavior state, once said turn error ratio no longer exceeds said predefined turn error ratio threshold.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: changing to a preceding tramming 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.).
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, Nishii and Hennessey with the feature of: changing to a preceding tramming 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 Nishii as applied to claim 11 – further in view of Brandt and in view of James.
As to claims 15 and 21, the combination of Vandapel and Nishii 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.).
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 Nishii 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, Nishii 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.).
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, Nishii 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 Nishii, in view of Sakai and in view of Oppolzer as applied to claim 12 – further in view of McCracken.
As to claim 17, the combination of Vandapel, Nishii, Sakai and Oppolzer fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said plurality of tramming behavior states includes a Match Collar corrective tramming behaviour state having associated behavior controls that minimize collar position error.
Nevertheless, McCracken teaches: a behavior state including a Match Collar corrective tramming 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.).
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, Nishii, Sakai and Oppolzer with the feature of: a behavior state including a Match Collar corrective tramming 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 18, the combination of Vandapel, Nishii, Sakai and Oppolzer fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said plurality of tramming behavior states includes a Match Angle corrective tramming state having associated behavior controls that minimize angle and collar position error.
Nevertheless, McCracken teaches: a behavior state including a Match Angle corrective tramming 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.).
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, Nishii, Sakai and Oppolzer with the feature of: a behavior state including a Match Angle corrective tramming 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 19 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Vandapel in view of Nishii as applied to claim 11 – further in view of Lundh et al. (US20180266247A1; “Lundh”).
As to claim 19, the combination of Vandapel and Nishii 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.)
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 Nishii 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
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights