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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 1/20/2023.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed an IDS on 5/02/2023); it is considered.
4. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim interpretations
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.
5 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” (see pending claims 1-10).
and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
6. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
7. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a machine guidance system (MGS) configured to provide instructions ...”, “one or more processing units configured to”, and “...one or more laser-based sensors that are each configured to capture...”: in independent claims 1, and 11.
10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
12. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
13. Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected because they incorporate above deficiencies of independent claims 1, and 11.
14. For continuing examinations, the examiner assumes that claimed limitations of : “... system (MGS) configured to provide instructions ...”, “....laser-based sensors that are each configured to capture...”, and “one or more processing units configured to:...”: have been well-understood, routine, and conventional system(s)/components in the art.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 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.
15. “system” claims 12, and 19 are 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.
Since claims 12, and 19 are directed to a system, they are unclear when applicant claims ”...determine at least one of a current heading and a current speed ... of construction machine.” (in claim 12); and “an automatic steering control mechanism”.
The examiner suggests a correction of ”...determine at least one of a current heading or a current speed ... of construction machine”; and “an automatic steering control device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
16. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn (US Pub. 20210247514 A1), in view of Buschmann (US Pub. 20220290383 A1).
A. Per claims 1, and 11: Horn’514 teaches a concept of using a road construction machine with laser scanner to generate a travel map. Horn’514 suggests a method for guiding a road construction machine along a desired travel path at a road- building site, comprising:
providing said road construction machine (see Horn’514, para. [0009]);
providing instructions for aligning a current position of the road construction machine with the desired travel path at the road-building site in order to guide the road construction machine along the desired travel path (see Horn’514 para. [0010]), having position sensors for determining the current position of the road construction machine (see Horn’514, para. [0031]);
one or more laser-based sensors that are each configured to capture a plurality of scans (see Horn’514 Fig. 4e) of a longitudinal boundary condition of a road surface along a longitudinal extent of the road surface; and one or more processing units configured to: identify at least one critical point (e.g., unlevel/off-set surface – see Horn’514 Fig. 1b) in each of the plurality of scans that is estimated to correlate with a location of a reference point of the road surface (see Horn, para. [0009]);
-generate a desired travel path of the road construction machine (i.e., control steering – see Horn‘514 [0010]) based on the at least one critical point of at least two of the plurality of scans (see Horn’514 Fig. 4e, para. [0053]); and
Horn’514 using instructions to control/aligning the current position of the road construction machine with the desired travel path of the road construction machine (by comparing different scanning beam in Fig. 2a for a corrected path), and with the machine position sensors, capturing scans of the road surface at the road-building site with laser sensors (see Horn’514 Fig. 1b, para. [0043] “Detecting, tracking and evaluating the reference is performed by the evaluation unit 20.”);
Horn’514 does not disclose that the road surface has reference points disposed along the longitudinal extent of the road surface; however, Buschmann suggests this limitation (see Buschmann, para. [0016]).
Horn’514 also providing the plurality of scans to the processing unit of the MGS; for each of the plurality of scans, identifying the at least one critical point using the one or more processing units; with the one or more processing units, generating the desired travel path based on the critical point of the scans (see Horn’514 Fig. 5a); with position sensors, determining the current position of the road construction machine; and with the units, providing instructions for aligning the current position with the desired travel path (e.g., based on high signal amplitude successive almost equal measurement values between two successive scans on the desired travel path, see Horn’514 Figs. 4c, and 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Horn’514 with Buschmann to include reference points on that road surface to have fixed references for guiding that road construction machine correctly moving along a planned path.
B. Per claim 2: Applicant claims the reference points are discontinuous along the longitudinal extent of the road surface. and immediately adjacent the first one of the of scans (merely scanning two adjacent points in order to keep a similar distance: e.g., by matching same signal amplitude of two consecutive scanning points, see Horn’514 Fig. 4c).
C. Per claim 6: Buschmann also uses a GNSS to determine a position/coordinates (this encompasses a portion of that “a position” (e.g., similar coordinates from a GNSS, see Buschmann, para. [0039]).
D. Per claims 8-9: Horn’514 and Buschmann suggest steps of:
- capturing scans of the road surface along a longitudinal extent of the road surface along a first lateral side of the road construction machine (see Horn’514, Fig. 2a “side plate”);
for each scan, identifying a reference/critical point (e.g., a standard reference along a travel path of the construction site (see Horn’514 para. [0010]) and
- generating desired travel path based on the critical point identified (see Buschmann, para. [0045]).
E. Per claim 10: Horn’514 suggests that each of the critical points is separated/different from each of the first critical points (see Horn’514 para. [0010], and Fig.2a ref. 54k, Fig. 7a ref. 54s).
F. Per claim 12: Horn’514 discloses a current heading/travel path (see Horn‘514 para. [0010]) and Buschmann also discloses a current speed (see Buschmann, para. [0024]) of the road construction machine.
G. Per claim 15: Horn’514 and Buschmann also disclose processing units to automatically execute the instructions so as to automatically align the road construction machine with the desired travel path (e.g., autonomous driving, see Buschmann para. [0024]) including automatically steering the road construction machine (see Buschmann, claim 7).
H. Per claim 20: Horn’514 also suggests that a machine guidance system disposed exclusively on the road construction machine (see Horn‘514 Figs. 1b, 2a).
17. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn’514 in view of Buschmann, and in view of Nelson (US Pat. 11,725,348 B2).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 11 are incorporated.
A. Per claim 18: Horn’514 in view of Buschmann fail to generate a representative model of the road surface that includes a desired function path for performing a desired machine function relative to the road surface and, upon generation of the representative model, to provide instructions for positioning the road construction machine such that the desired machine function may be performed along the desired function path; however, Nelson suggests about using a driving unit with a machine learning model to perform applicant’s claimed functions (e.g., “...include a machine learning model implemented within the control system. The distance, the speed of both the machines 100, 102, and relative speed between the paving machine 100 and the supply machine 102 may be recorded over time and provided as a training corpus to the machine learning model. The machine learning model may determine a correlation between the distance, speed, and the relative speed to determine an optimum speed at which the supply machine 102 may move and engage with the paving machine 100 so as to minimize the impact. A feedback may also be provided to the machine learning model indicating the resultant impact on the paving machine 100 as well as the screed assembly 122 to retrain the machine learning model” - see Nelson col. 9 lines 42-55).
B. Per claim 19: Nelson also suggests a system to receive the instructions for aligning the current position of the road construction machine with the desired travel path of the road construction machine and to automatically adjust the position of the road construction machine via an automatic steering control mechanism, such that the road construction machine travels along the desired travel path (see Nelson col. 9 lines 41-55 “ the system 500 may also include a machine learning model implemented within the control system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Horn’514 with Buschmann, and with Nelson to incorporate machine learning models in the control system for content-based filtering or collaborative filtering to improve relevant predictions.
Claim Objections
18. Claims 3-5, 13-14, and 16-17 are objected (considering prior art) because they are dependent on their rejected based claims 1, and 11.
Conclusion
19. Pending claims 1-20 are rejected.
Note: A laser-sensing application in road constructions
PNG
media_image1.png
609
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664