DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/17/2026. In the amendment, claims 1 and 5-6 have been amended, and claims 2-4 are now canceled. Overall, claims 1 and 5-8 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2021/0286376 A1 to Takahashi et. al. (Takahashi) in view of Pub No. US 2022/0099843 A1 to Kbayer et. al. (Kbayer) and further in view of Pub No. WO 2021/239836 A1 to Courtois et. al. (Courtois) and further in view of Pub No. US 2017/0357006 A1 to Ohrlund et. al. (Ohrlund).
Examiner’s Note: Machine translation of WO 2021/239836 A1 is used in the rejection below.
In Reference to Claim 1
Takahashi teaches a management device (200) that manages a plurality of autonomous working machines (10), the management device (200) comprising:
one or more processors (200) configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored in memory (200c),
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the management device (200) and
the autonomous working machine (10) equipped with an external sensor (11) configured to detect an external environment of the autonomous working machine (10) (see Takahashi Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 21, 30-41).
However Takahashi is silent as to the management device (200) to: acquire, from each of at least two of the autonomous working machines, position information calculated by the autonomous working machine based on satellite signals; determine a level of position accuracy of the position information; correct and determine based on the position information of a first autonomous working machine having a positional accuracy that is relatively high, the position information of a second autonomous working machine having the positional accuracy that is relatively low; and notify the second autonomous working machine of the position information that has been corrected. However, it is known in the art (vehicle navigation) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a control system configured to acquire, from each of at least two of the vehicles, position information calculated by the vehicle based on satellite signals; determine a level of position accuracy of the position information; configured to correct, and determine based on the position information of a first vehicle having a positional accuracy that is relatively high, the position information of a second vehicle having the positional accuracy that is relatively low; and configured to notify the second vehicle of the position information that has been corrected.
For example, Kbayer teaches in vehicle navigation art to have a control system (1) to acquire, from each of at least two of the vehicles, position information calculated by the vehicle based on satellite signals and determine a level of position accuracy of the position information (see Kbayer paragraphs 38-44 and 55); configured to correct and determine, based on the position information of a first vehicle (VL) (which has an additional sensor #23 which can be a camera) having a positional accuracy that is relatively high, the position information of a second vehicle (VP) having the positional accuracy that is relatively low (steps 100-300) (see Kbayer paragraphs 48, 50-60); and configured to notify the second vehicle of the position information that has been corrected (step 400) (see Kbayer paragraph 62-65). Kbayer further teaches that having such control system provides that it is possible to correct or supplement the location of vehicles for which a location based on GNSS signals alone is not available without complex and costly processing (see at least Kbayer Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 38-65). Therefore 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 system of Takahashi to include the control system to acquire, from each of at least two of the vehicles, position information calculated by the vehicle based on satellite signals; determine a level of position accuracy of the position information; configured to correct, and determine based on the position information of a first vehicle having a positional accuracy that is relatively high, the position information of a second vehicle having the positional accuracy that is relatively low; and configured to notify the second vehicle of the position information that has been corrected as taught by Kbayer in order to correct or supplement the location of vehicles for which a location based on GNSS signals alone is not available without complex and costly processing.
Takahashi in view of Kbayer do not explicitly teaches that the control system configured to transmit to the second autonomous working machine (10) an instruction to stop or reduce a speed of the second autonomous working machine (10) in a case where the position information of the second autonomous working machine (10) is corrected. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a control system configured to transmit to the second autonomous working machine an instruction to stop or reduce a speed of the second autonomous working machine in a case where the position information of the second autonomous working machine is corrected. For example, Courtois teaches to control system configured to transmit to the autonomous working machine (1) an instruction to stop or reduce a speed of the autonomous working machine (1) in a case where the position information of the autonomous working machine (1) is corrected. Courtois further teaches performing such step provides time to accurately control the working machine in the corrected area or location (see at least Courtois Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 63). Therefore 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 control system of Takahashi in view of Kbayer to perform the step of transmitting to the second autonomous working machine an instruction to stop or reduce a speed of the second autonomous working machine in a case where the position information of the second autonomous working machine is corrected as taught by Courtois in order to provide time to accurately control the working machine in the corrected area or location.
Takahashi in view of Kbayer in view of Courtois determines the first autonomous working machine as to having the high position accuracy however Takahashi in view of Kbayer in view of Courtois do not explicitly teaches to determine, when there are a plurality of the autonomous working machines each equipped with the external sensor, as the first autonomous working machine, the autonomous working machine relatively close to a predetermined targe. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine, when there are a plurality of the autonomous working machines each equipped with the external sensor, as the first autonomous working machine, the autonomous working machine relatively close to a predetermined targe. For example, Ohrlund teaches that accuracy of the location is higher when closer to the target location. Ohrlund further teaches that having such step provides accurate determination of the location in combination with the GNSS system (see at least Ohrlund Figs 1-2 and paragraphs 4, 11 and 40). Therefore 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 system of Takahashi in view of Kbayer in view of Courtois with the step of determining as the first autonomous working machine, the autonomous working machine relatively close to a predetermined target as taught by Ohrlund in order to provide accurate determination of the location in combination with the GNSS system.
In Reference to Claim 5
The management device according to claim 1 (See rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the management device to determine, as the second autonomous working machine (Vp), the autonomous working machine whose reception strength of the satellite signals is relatively low or the autonomous working machine for which a number of satellites from which the satellite signals are received is relatively small (Kbayer teaches “a high confidence level may be attributed by default to a vehicle, depending on the model of the vehicle, the type of sensors integrated therein, etc. A confidence level may advantageously be attributed to a vehicle if said vehicle comprises additional sensors 23 suitable for providing data that supplement the GNSS signals and thus confirm the obtained location data. For example, an image acquired by a camera that provides information on the environment of the vehicle, or odometric or accelerometric data may be used to confirm the location data obtained by the GNSS signals”) (see at least Kbayer Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 50-60).
In Reference to Claim 6
The management device according to claim 1 (See rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the management device to correct the position information of the second autonomous working machine (Vp) based on relative positional relationship between the first autonomous working machine (VI) and the second autonomous working machine (Vp), and the position information of the first autonomous working machine (VI) (Kbayer teaches “the similarity of the GNSS reception conditions is therefore used to make a correction to the location for vehicles with a lower confidence or to provide a location for vehicles for which said location is not available” which is based on the first vehicle (Vl)) (see at least Kbayer Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 54).
In Reference to Claim 7
The management device according to claim 1 (See rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the management device to correct the position information of the second autonomous working machine (Vp) when a distance between the first autonomous working machine (VI) and the second autonomous working machine (Vp) is less than a predetermined first distance threshold value (Kbayer teaches “the location of the vehicle to be located can then be determined as the location of the selected located vehicle having the GNSS signal closest to the GNSS signal from the vehicle to be located, if the difference between the two GNSS signals is below a threshold”) (see at least Kbayer Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 25, 29).
In Reference to Claim 8
The management device according to claim 7 (See rejection to claim 7 above), wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the management device to replace the position information of the second autonomous working machine (Vp) with the position information of the first autonomous working machine (VI) when the distance is less than a second distance threshold value that is less than the first distance threshold value (Kbayer teaches that “the requirement for the similarity between the GNSS signal from the closest located vehicle and that of the vehicle to be located can be made stricter” therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of Takahashi in view of Kbayer to have multiple thresholds degrees based on how strict the threshold has to be) (see at least Kbayer Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2021/0263165 A1 to Zheng et. al. (Zheng) teaches determining a second location of the first proximate vehicle based, at least in part, upon the GNSS phase measurement data for the first proximate vehicle and the GNSS phase measurement data for the ego vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights