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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are either amended directly or via a claim they depend from.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim Objections: Applicant’s amendment to Claim 11, see page 7, filed on 10/16/2025, has successfully obviated the previously applied objection. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 § USC 102 and 35 § USC 103 : Applicant’s arguments and corresponding amendments, see pages 7-8, filed on 10/16/2025, have been fully considered. Applicant has respectfully argued that the cited reference Berkemeier fails to disclose, (Applicant Arguments, Final two Lines of Page 7 & First two Lines of Page 8) “at least determining the position of a control point in relation to the track-mounted vehicle by adjusting a position of a default control point based on the at least one characteristic,” in order to effect movement control of the track-mounted vehicle. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s specification contains adequate disclosure for the limitation of a default control point from within at least Paragraph [0033], the beginning portion of which reads, “At operation 302, controller 112 may be configured to obtain a default control point for track-mounted vehicle 100. An example of a default control point is shown in FIG. 5. Default control point 501 may comprise pivot point 140.”
First, with regards to the limitation of a default control point, Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 14-17) “In the illustrated embodiment, the weight distribution between the right side wheels 42 and the left side wheels 44 is often uneven, resulting in a changed center of gravity and changed pivot points 46.” Examiner is interpreting an even weight distribution between the left and right side wheels under broadest reasonable interpretation as a “default control point” which is adjusted at least upon unevenness in the weight distribution causing a change in the center of gravity caused by, for example, a change in the location of the working implement.
Second, with regards to the limitation on adjusting a position of a default control point based on the least one characteristic, Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity,” and that, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined” as well as that, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.” Therefore, the control point is adjusted via the effect the change of the center of gravity has on it, via the determination of a deviation, from the original/default control point.
Therefore, Berkemeier has been reapplied as prior art to the amended independent claims in the following, Claim rejections - 35 USC § 102, section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by anticipated by Berkemeier et al. (US 2017/0191244 A1, hereinafter Berkemeier)
Claim 1 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“An apparatus for controlling a track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0016], Lines 1-4) “Turning now to the drawings, FIG. 1 shows a work vehicle 10 having a frame 12 that is supported and moved by a plurality of wheels 14. Alternately, a track drive or other appropriate drive system may be used.”
“the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 1-18) “The navigation of the work vehicle 10 is controlled by the controller 40. It should be noted that while the term “controller” is used in the present discussion, in practice, the “controller” may consist of one or more independent or cooperating units, which itself or themselves comprise processing circuitry, memory circuitry, input and output components, control signal generating and output components, and so forth. For example, the controller 40 may have a processor 52 (e.g., multiple microprocessors, one or more “general-purpose” microprocessors, one or more special-purpose microprocessors, and/or one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), system-on-chip (SoC) device, or some other processor configuration) and memory 50 (e.g., random access memory, read only memory, flash memory, volatile or non-volatile memory, hard drive, etc.). The controller 40 is configured to store instructions (e.g., code) in the memory 50 and to execute the instructions via the processor 52 to control operation of the work vehicle 10.”
“obtain information on a path to be followed by the track-mounted vehicle;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 25-30) “The controller then automatically controls the vehicle by determining a load, by identifying a center of gravity based in part on the load and the received data, and the control point. In particular, the controller may control wheels to adjust trajectory to maintain the trajectory of the work vehicle on the desired path.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 1-8) “FIGS. 4-5 are top views of a trajectory of the vehicle 10 and wheels 14. FIG. 4 is a top view of the pathway of the trajectory of the wheels 14 (e.g., right wheels 42, left wheels 44) of the work vehicle 10 when the work vehicle 10 travels in a curved trajectory. The controller is configured to automatically adjust the trajectory (e.g., speed, direction, steering) of the wheels 14 of the work vehicle 10 based in part on the control point.”
“obtain information on at least one characteristic affecting movement control of the track- mounted vehicle; determine a position of a control point in relation to the track-mounted vehicle”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“by adjusting a position of a default control point based on the at least one characteristic;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 14-17) “In the illustrated embodiment, the weight distribution between the right side wheels 42 and the left side wheels 44 is often uneven, resulting in a changed center of gravity and changed pivot points 46.” Examiner is interpreting an even weight distribution between the left and right side wheels under broadest reasonable interpretation as a “default control point” which is adjusted at least upon unevenness in the weight distribution caused by, for example, a change in the location of the working implement.
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.” Therefore, the control point is adjusted via the effect the change of the center of gravity has on it, through the determination of a deviation, from the original/default control point.
“and control movement of the track-mounted vehicle based on the path and the control point, wherein the control point is configured to be aligned with the path to cause the track-mounted vehicle to follow the path.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0007], Lines 8-12) “Control circuitry, in operation, receives the operator inputs and the sensor data, and controls the speed and rotational direction of the wheels or tracks to maintain a computed a trajectory of the vehicle based in part on a control point.”
Claim 2 Discloses: (Original)
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a physical characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“an operational characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 23-29) “An error in trajectory tracking and a time derivative associated with the error can be calculated. As the work vehicle 10 proceeds along its desired trajectory, the controller adjusts automatically the speed, direction and/or steering angle of the wheels 14 in order to move the work vehicle along the requested (e.g., curved, linear) pathway based in part on the control point.”
“and/or an environmental characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 19-25) In particular, the controller 40 may execute instructions to control the wheels 42, 44 to provide a stable rate of movement in one or more directions 54 (e.g., linear or rotational movement) based, for example, on a size, weight, shape, or other characteristics of the load 56, the stability of the locations (e.g., pushing through ground or various impediments), and so forth.”
Claim 3 Discloses: (Original)
“The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the physical characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle comprises a mass, a mast position, or a boom position of the track- mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“wherein the operational characteristic comprises a driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 23-29) “An error in trajectory tracking and a time derivative associated with the error can be calculated. As the work vehicle 10 proceeds along its desired trajectory, the controller adjusts automatically the speed, direction and/or steering angle of the wheels 14 in order to move the work vehicle along the requested (e.g., curved, linear) pathway based in part on the control point.”
“or wherein the environmental characteristic comprises a type of a current driving surface of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 19-25) In particular, the controller 40 may execute instructions to control the wheels 42, 44 to provide a stable rate of movement in one or more directions 54 (e.g., linear or rotational movement) based, for example, on a size, weight, shape, or other characteristics of the load 56, the stability of the locations (e.g., pushing through ground or various impediments), and so forth.”
Claim 5 Discloses (Previously Presented)
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine the position of the control point based on a current inclination angle of a mast or a boom of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0038, Lines 2-8) “The method 100 includes translating a moveable arm of the work vehicle 10 (e.g., a skid steer vehicle) as needed as the work vehicle 10 is used in operation (block 102). The work vehicle 10 may be used for moving material, raising, lowering, loading and unloading various loads and materials, or any other suitable purposes depending on the attachment.” The skid steer of Figure 1 has a standard boom structure consisting of two lifting arms that extend from the machine's frame to the front, where they are connected to implement (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 13-21) “A rotational movement 32 of an implement about axis 30 is sometimes referred to as a “back-angle” or pitch. An axis 34 extends in a substantially vertical direction with respect to an operator seated inside the cab of the vehicle. A rotational movement 36 of the implement about axis 34 is sometimes referred to as “angle” or yaw. All of the rotational movements contribute to changes of the center of gravity, which impact the ability to control the work vehicle 10.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
Claim 6 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: obtain a default control point, wherein the default control point comprises a pivot point of the track-mounted vehicle without non-rotational transition of the track-mounted vehicle in a coordinate system;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 10-13) “The system and method include maintaining control of the vehicle based in part on a control point (e.g., a predetermined point on the work vehicle used to calculate a deviation of the vehicle from the desired point).”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 12-14) “In this case, pivot points 46 of the associated right side wheels 42 and the left side wheels 44 are located at the center of the vehicle 10.”
“and determine the position of the control point by adjusting a position of the default control point based on the at least one characteristic.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 1-8) “The present disclosure also relates to a method for controlling a work vehicle comprising translating a moveable implement coupled to the work vehicle relative to the vehicle, receiving an operator steering input, and receiving sensor data indicative of one or more of vehicle position, vehicle velocity, vehicle acceleration, and vehicle heading. Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
Claim 7 Discloses: (Original)
“The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to … and/or adjust the position of the default control point based on a current inclination angle of a mast or a boom of the track-mounted vehicle to determine the position of the control point.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0038, Lines 2-8) “The method 100 includes translating a moveable arm of the work vehicle 10 (e.g., a skid steer vehicle) as needed as the work vehicle 10 is used in operation (block 102). The work vehicle 10 may be used for moving material, raising, lowering, loading and unloading various loads and materials, or any other suitable purposes depending on the attachment.” The skid steer of Figure 1 has a standard boom structure consisting of two lifting arms that extend from the machine's frame to the front, where they are connected to implement (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 13-21) “A rotational movement 32 of an implement about axis 30 is sometimes referred to as a “back-angle” or pitch. An axis 34 extends in a substantially vertical direction with respect to an operator seated inside the cab of the vehicle. A rotational movement 36 of the implement about axis 34 is sometimes referred to as “angle” or yaw. All of the rotational movements contribute to changes of the center of gravity, which impact the ability to control the work vehicle 10.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“adjust the position of the default control point towards a driving direction of the track- mounted vehicle to determine the position of the control point,”
Berkemeier does not explicitly teach the preceding limitation, but is still used for the rejection due to teaching on one of the two stated possibilities.
Claim 8 Discloses: (Original)
“The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: apply a first control point offset distance to adjust the position of the default control point towards a first driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 1-7) “In embodiments where the work vehicle 10 rotates off-center, the center point motion is different from simple rotation. The second term in the x component accounts for pivoting at a point that is not at the center of the vehicle. The rotationCenterOffset, d, is the offset along the x-axis of the work vehicle 10 relative to a control point (e.g., the center of the work vehicle 10).”
“and apply a second control point offset distance to adjust the position of the default control point towards a second driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle, wherein the first control point offset distance is different from the second control point offset distance.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 7-10) “For example, as the vehicle turns left about the pivot point 46, the center point moves. The x and y components are affected by the amount shown in equation (1).” A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a different rotation motion, such as rotation to the right, would generate a separate control point offset distance corresponding to the second driving direction.
Berkemeier additionally describes, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.”
Claim 9 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine a control point offset for the current inclination angle of the mast or the boom based on a mapping between a plurality of inclination angles of the mast or the boom and respective control point offsets; and adjust the position of the default control point based on the control point offset.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 13-21) “A rotational movement 32 of an implement about axis 30 is sometimes referred to as a “back-angle” or pitch. An axis 34 extends in a substantially vertical direction with respect to an operator seated inside the cab of the vehicle. A rotational movement 36 of the implement about axis 34 is sometimes referred to as “angle” or yaw. All of the rotational movements contribute to changes of the center of gravity, which impact the ability to control the work vehicle 10.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 1-7) “In embodiments where the work vehicle 10 rotates off-center, the center point motion is different from simple rotation. The second term in the x component accounts for pivoting at a point that is not at the center of the vehicle. The rotationCenterOffset, d, is the offset along the x-axis of the work vehicle 10 relative to a control point (e.g., the center of the work vehicle 10).”
Claim 11 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: detect a deviation between a heading of the track-mounted vehicle and a tangent of a trajectory of the control point;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 13-16) “The system and method for controlling the steering of the work vehicle also include taking various measurements to predict the vehicle trajectory, and to measure the actual trajectory.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 22-30) “The controller is configured to receive data indicative, for example, of a first position, a first acceleration, a first angular velocity, a first heading angle, and a first velocity. The controller then automatically controls the vehicle by determining a load, by identifying a center of gravity based in part on the load and the received data, and the control point. In particular, the controller may control wheels to adjust trajectory to maintain the trajectory of the work vehicle on the desired path.”
“and adjust the position of the control point based on the deviation between the heading of the track-mounted vehicle point and the tangent of the trajectory of the control point.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 17-19) “The error between the measured trajectory and the predicted trajectory is minimized by adjusting the steering of the wheels (e.g., right side wheels, left side wheels).”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.”
Changing a steering angle minimizes the angular error measurement acquired from taking the tangent of the between the heading of the vehicle and trajectory of the control point.
Claim 13 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“A track-mounted vehicle comprising the apparatus according to claim 1.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Abstract) “An electronic control system for a work allows for control of steering despite movement of an implement that may support a load. Control may be based on vehicle position, velocity, acceleration, center of gravity, and heading. A control point is determined despite movement of the load, and may be based upon one or more of roll, yaw, and pitch of the vehicle. The vehicle may be of the type that allows for control only of wheel or track speed and rotational direction. A desired center of gravity is maintained while controlling an error between a desired vehicle trajectory and a determined trajectory in a closed loop manner.
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0006], Lines 8-13) “Control circuitry, in operation, receives the operator inputs and the sensor data, and controls driving of the wheels or tracks by determining a load on the implement, determining a control point of the vehicle, wherein the control circuitry regulates driving of the wheels or tracks to maintain a desired trajectory.”
Claim 14 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A method for controlling a track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches a, (Title) “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUS STEERING CONTROL OF WORK VEHICLES.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0016], Lines 1-4) “Turning now to the drawings, FIG. 1 shows a work vehicle 10 having a frame 12 that is supported and moved by a plurality of wheels 14. Alternately, a track drive or other appropriate drive system may be used.”
“comprising: obtaining information on a path to be followed by the track-mounted vehicle;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 25-30) “The controller then automatically controls the vehicle by determining a load, by identifying a center of gravity based in part on the load and the received data, and the control point. In particular, the controller may control wheels to adjust trajectory to maintain the trajectory of the work vehicle on the desired path.”
“obtaining information on at least one characteristic affecting movement control of the track-mounted vehicle; determining a position of a control point in relation to the track-mounted vehicle”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“by adjusting a position of a default control point based on the at least one characteristic;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 14-17) “In the illustrated embodiment, the weight distribution between the right side wheels 42 and the left side wheels 44 is often uneven, resulting in a changed center of gravity and changed pivot points 46.” Examiner is interpreting an even weight distribution between the left and right side wheels under broadest reasonable interpretation as a “default control point” which is adjusted at least upon unevenness in the weight distribution caused by, for example, a change in the location of the working implement.
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.” Therefore, the control point is adjusted via the effect the change of the center of gravity has on it, through the determination of a deviation, from the original/default control point.
“and controlling movement of the track-mounted vehicle based on the path and the control point, wherein the control point is configured to be aligned with the path to cause the track- mounted vehicle to follow the path.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0007], Lines 8-12) “Control circuitry, in operation, receives the operator inputs and the sensor data, and controls the speed and rotational direction of the wheels or tracks to maintain a computed a trajectory of the vehicle based in part on a control point.”
Claim 15 Discloses: (Original)
“The method according to claim 14, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a physical characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“an operational characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 23-29) “An error in trajectory tracking and a time derivative associated with the error can be calculated. As the work vehicle 10 proceeds along its desired trajectory, the controller adjusts automatically the speed, direction and/or steering angle of the wheels 14 in order to move the work vehicle along the requested (e.g., curved, linear) pathway based in part on the control point.”
“and/or an environmental characteristic of the track- mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 19-25) In particular, the controller 40 may execute instructions to control the wheels 42, 44 to provide a stable rate of movement in one or more directions 54 (e.g., linear or rotational movement) based, for example, on a size, weight, shape, or other characteristics of the load 56, the stability of the locations (e.g., pushing through ground or various impediments), and so forth.”
Claim 16 Discloses:
“The method according to claim 15, wherein the physical characteristic of the track-mounted vehicle comprises a mass, a mast position, or a boom position of the track- mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“wherein the operational characteristic comprises a driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle,”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 23-29) “An error in trajectory tracking and a time derivative associated with the error can be calculated. As the work vehicle 10 proceeds along its desired trajectory, the controller adjusts automatically the speed, direction and/or steering angle of the wheels 14 in order to move the work vehicle along the requested (e.g., curved, linear) pathway based in part on the control point.”
“or wherein the environmental characteristic comprises a type of a current driving surface of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 19-25) In particular, the controller 40 may execute instructions to control the wheels 42, 44 to provide a stable rate of movement in one or more directions 54 (e.g., linear or rotational movement) based, for example, on a size, weight, shape, or other characteristics of the load 56, the stability of the locations (e.g., pushing through ground or various impediments), and so forth.”
Claim 18 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The method according to claim 14, further comprising determining the position of the control point based on a current inclination angle of a mast or a boom of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0038, Lines 2-8) “The method 100 includes translating a moveable arm of the work vehicle 10 (e.g., a skid steer vehicle) as needed as the work vehicle 10 is used in operation (block 102). The work vehicle 10 may be used for moving material, raising, lowering, loading and unloading various loads and materials, or any other suitable purposes depending on the attachment.” The skid steer of Figure 1 has a standard boom structure consisting of two lifting arms that extend from the machine's frame to the front, where they are connected to implement (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 13-21) “A rotational movement 32 of an implement about axis 30 is sometimes referred to as a “back-angle” or pitch. An axis 34 extends in a substantially vertical direction with respect to an operator seated inside the cab of the vehicle. A rotational movement 36 of the implement about axis 34 is sometimes referred to as “angle” or yaw. All of the rotational movements contribute to changes of the center of gravity, which impact the ability to control the work vehicle 10.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
Claim 19 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The method according to claim 14, further comprising: obtaining a default control point, wherein the default control point comprises a pivot point of the track-mounted vehicle without non-rotational transition of the track-mounted vehicle in a coordinate system;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 10-13) “The system and method include maintaining control of the vehicle based in part on a control point (e.g., a predetermined point on the work vehicle used to calculate a deviation of the vehicle from the desired point).”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 12-14) “In this case, pivot points 46 of the associated right side wheels 42 and the left side wheels 44 are located at the center of the vehicle 10.”
“and determining the position of the control point by adjusting a position of the default control point based on the at least one characteristic.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 1-8) “The present disclosure also relates to a method for controlling a work vehicle comprising translating a moveable implement coupled to the work vehicle relative to the vehicle, receiving an operator steering input, and receiving sensor data indicative of one or more of vehicle position, vehicle velocity, vehicle acceleration, and vehicle heading. Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
Claim 20 Discloses (Currently Amended)
“A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions which, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus at least to:”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 1-18) “The navigation of the work vehicle 10 is controlled by the controller 40. It should be noted that while the term “controller” is used in the present discussion, in practice, the “controller” may consist of one or more independent or cooperating units, which itself or themselves comprise processing circuitry, memory circuitry, input and output components, control signal generating and output components, and so forth. For example, the controller 40 may have a processor 52 (e.g., multiple microprocessors, one or more “general-purpose” microprocessors, one or more special-purpose microprocessors, and/or one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), system-on-chip (SoC) device, or some other processor configuration) and memory 50 (e.g., random access memory, read only memory, flash memory, volatile or non-volatile memory, hard drive, etc.). The controller 40 is configured to store instructions (e.g., code) in the memory 50 and to execute the instructions via the processor 52 to control operation of the work vehicle 10.”
“obtain information on a path to be followed by the track-mounted vehicle;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 25-30) “The controller then automatically controls the vehicle by determining a load, by identifying a center of gravity based in part on the load and the received data, and the control point. In particular, the controller may control wheels to adjust trajectory to maintain the trajectory of the work vehicle on the desired path.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 1-8) “FIGS. 4-5 are top views of a trajectory of the vehicle 10 and wheels 14. FIG. 4 is a top view of the pathway of the trajectory of the wheels 14 (e.g., right wheels 42, left wheels 44) of the work vehicle 10 when the work vehicle 10 travels in a curved trajectory. The controller is configured to automatically adjust the trajectory (e.g., speed, direction, steering) of the wheels 14 of the work vehicle 10 based in part on the control point.”
“obtain information on at least one characteristic affecting movement control of the track- mounted vehicle; determine a position of a control point in relation to the track-mounted vehicle”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 20-23) “The mass and stability of a load 56 and the position of the implement, the load, and the lever arms supporting the implement also affect the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0008], Lines 7-8) “Based upon at least the load, a center of gravity, and the sensor data, a control point is determined.”
“by adjusting a position of a default control point based on the at least one characteristic;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 14-17) “In the illustrated embodiment, the weight distribution between the right side wheels 42 and the left side wheels 44 is often uneven, resulting in a changed center of gravity and changed pivot points 46.” Examiner is interpreting an even weight distribution between the left and right side wheels under broadest reasonable interpretation as a “default control point” which is adjusted at least upon unevenness in the weight distribution caused by, for example, a change in the location of the working implement.
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.” Therefore, the control point is adjusted via the effect the change of the center of gravity has on it, through the determination of a deviation, from the original/default control point.
“and control movement of the track-mounted vehicle based on the path and the control point, wherein the control point is configured to be aligned with the path to cause the track-mounted vehicle to follow the path.”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0007], Lines 8-12) “Control circuitry, in operation, receives the operator inputs and the sensor data, and controls the speed and rotational direction of the wheels or tracks to maintain a computed a trajectory of the vehicle based in part on a control point.”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkemeier in view of Ando et al. (WO 2023/054212 A1, hereinafter Ando).
Ando describes that the, (Paragraph [0006]) “control system for a vehicle according to the present invention is a method or system for driving a vehicle along a target trajectory using marks provided on a road surface. A control method and a control system according to the present invention identify the lateral deviation of a control point from a target trajectory based on the lateral deviation from a mark, and perform steering so that the lateral deviation of the control point approaches zero.” Ando is relevant to applicant’s disclosure due to its methodology of altering the longitudinal position of a control point in response to deviations in desired trajectories when turning, which will be discussed as applicable to the following claims.
Claim 4 Discloses: (Original)
“The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: adjust the position of the control point towards the driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations. However, secondary reference Ando does teach the preceding limitations.
Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0004], Lines 1-7) “One aspect of the present invention is a control method for causing a vehicle to travel such that a predetermined control point set for the vehicle follows a target trajectory, using marks provided on a road surface forming a travel path of the vehicle. wherein the vehicle comprises a device for identifying a lateral deviation with respect to the mark, and converting the lateral deviation with respect to the mark into a lateral deviation of the control point with respect to the target trajectory; and a process of controlling the steering angle of the steered wheels of the vehicle so that the deviation of the control point in the lateral direction approaches zero.”
Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0058], Lines 5-8) “The forward gaze distance Lf may be set so that the control point CT is located at the position of the front wheel axle 211A or at a position forward of the front wheel axle 211A. In this case, steering can be started before the front wheels 211 overshoot the target trajectory TL, and control can be performed so that the vehicle 2 does not overshoot the target trajectory TL.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the track mounted vehicle apparatus of Berkemeier with the methodology of implementing a driving direction longitudinal shift of a control point in response to steering delay and/or understeer as taught by Ando, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining with the methodology of Ando would be to mitigate understeer error and realign a vehicle with its desired trajectory around a turn. As Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0053], Lines 2-5) “If the control point CT is positioned behind the front wheel axle 211A, steering is started after the center position of the front wheel axle 211A has crossed the target locus TL. In this case, the front wheel 211 always overshoots the target trajectory TL, resulting in meandering.” This described meandering would correspond to vehicle understeer.
Claim 10 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: detect a deviation of the position of the control point from the path at a turn of the path;”
Berkemeier teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 1-7) “In embodiments where the work vehicle 10 rotates off-center, the center point motion is different from simple rotation. The second term in the x component accounts for pivoting at a point that is not at the center of the vehicle. The rotationCenterOffset, d, is the offset along the x-axis of the work vehicle 10 relative to a control point (e.g., the center of the work vehicle 10).”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines, 24-28) “The method 100 includes instructing the right and the left wheels to account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.”
Berkemeier additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “Accordingly, to allow for better and more predictable control, it would be advantageous to determine the center of gravity of such vehicles and to regulate at least some operations (e.g., steering) based on the center of gravity.”
Berkemeier does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, secondary reference Ando does teach the following limitations.
“and adjust the position of the control point opposite to the driving direction of the track- mounted vehicle, in response to determining that the deviation is towards inside of the turn of the path,”
Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0004], Lines 1-7) “One aspect of the present invention is a control method for causing a vehicle to travel such that a predetermined control point set for the vehicle follows a target trajectory, using marks provided on a road surface forming a travel path of the vehicle. wherein the vehicle comprises a device for identifying a lateral deviation with respect to the mark, and converting the lateral deviation with respect to the mark into a lateral deviation of the control point with respect to the target trajectory; and a process of controlling the steering angle of the steered wheels of the vehicle so that the deviation of the control point in the lateral direction approaches zero.”
Ando additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0058], Lines 5-8) “The forward gaze distance Lf may be set so that the control point CT is located at the position of the front wheel axle 211A or at a position forward of the front wheel axle 211A. In this case, steering can be started before the front wheels 211 overshoot the target trajectory TL, and control can be performed so that the vehicle 2 does not overshoot the target trajectory TL.”
“or adjust the control point towards the driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle, in response to determining that the deviation is towards outside of the turn of the path.”
Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0053], Lines 2-5) “If the control point CT is positioned behind the front wheel axle 211A, steering is started after the center position of the front wheel axle 211A has crossed the target locus TL. In this case, the front wheel 211 always overshoots the target trajectory TL, resulting in meandering.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the track mounted vehicle apparatus of Berkemeier with the methodology of implementing a longitudinal shift of a control point in response to oversteer or understeer as taught by Ando, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining with the methodology of Ando would be to mitigate oversteer and/or understeer error and realign a vehicle with its desired trajectory around a turn. As Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0053], Lines 2-5) “If the control point CT is positioned behind the front wheel axle 211A, steering is started after the center position of the front wheel axle 211A has crossed the target locus TL. In this case, the front wheel 211 always overshoots the target trajectory TL, resulting in meandering.” This described meandering would correspond to vehicle understeer.
Combining with the methodology of Ando would additionally provide the benefits of longitudinally moving the control point to compensate for higher vehicle speeds around turns. As Ando describes, (Paragraph [0007], Lines 4-7) “According to the present invention, the control point can be positioned forward as the speed of the vehicle increases. If the control point is positioned forward when the speed of the vehicle increases, the control delay can be suppressed and the risk of the vehicle deviating from the target trajectory can be suppressed.”
Claim 17 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The method according to claim 16, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to adjust the position of the control point towards the driving direction of the track-mounted vehicle.”
Berkemeier does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations. However, secondary reference Ando does teach the preceding limitations.
Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0004], Lines 1-7) “One aspect of the present invention is a control method for causing a vehicle to travel such that a predetermined control point set for the vehicle follows a target trajectory, using marks provided on a road surface forming a travel path of the vehicle. wherein the vehicle comprises a device for identifying a lateral deviation with respect to the mark, and converting the lateral deviation with respect to the mark into a lateral deviation of the control point with respect to the target trajectory; and a process of controlling the steering angle of the steered wheels of the vehicle so that the deviation of the control point in the lateral direction approaches zero.”
Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0058], Lines 5-8) “The forward gaze distance Lf may be set so that the control point CT is located at the position of the front wheel axle 211A or at a position forward of the front wheel axle 211A. In this case, steering can be started before the front wheels 211 overshoot the target trajectory TL, and control can be performed so that the vehicle 2 does not overshoot the target trajectory TL.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the track mounted vehicle apparatus of Berkemeier with the methodology of implementing a driving direction longitudinal shift of a control point in response to steering delay and/or understeer as taught by Ando, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining with the methodology of Ando would be to mitigate understeer error and realign a vehicle with its desired trajectory around a turn. As Ando teaches, (Paragraph [0053], Lines 2-5) “If the control point CT is positioned behind the front wheel axle 211A, steering is started after the center position of the front wheel axle 211A has crossed the target locus TL. In this case, the front wheel 211 always overshoots the target trajectory TL, resulting in meandering.” This described meandering would correspond to vehicle understeer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkemeier in view of Green et al. (US 2021/0108378 A1, hereinafter Green)
Green discloses, (Abstract) “Systems and methods for controlling a construction machine, such as an asphalt paver, having a tractor, an implement coupled to the tractor via at least one tow arm, and a mast. A position sensor mounted to the mast may detect a geospatial position of the mast. An angle sensor may detect at least one angle associated with the mast. A control point may be calculated based on the geospatial position and the at least one angle. The control point may be spatially offset from a vector formed by a lengthwise extension of the mast. The at least one tow arm may be moved based on a comparison between the control point and a target point.”
Claim 12 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is external to the track-mounted vehicle and configured to remotely control the track-mounted vehicle.”
As discussed with the rejection of claim 1, Berkemeier does teach an apparatus for controlling a track-mounted vehicle.
However, Berkemeier does not teach the rest of the limitations with regards to claim 12. Secondary reference Green does teach the remaining limitations of claim 12.
Green teaches, (Paragraph [0078]) “Various forms of computer-readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to the processor(s) 810 for execution. Merely by way of example, the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk and/or optical disc of a remote computer. A remote computer might load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions as signals over a transmission medium to be received and/or executed by computer system 800.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the track mounted vehicle apparatus of Berkemeier with the remote-control option of Green, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the reference would be to send pertinent information to the autonomous work machine that the vehicle cannot readily gather on its own, but would still beneficial towards deciding remote operations. For example, Green describes that an, (Paragraph [0057], Lines 12-15) “External computing system 162 may also send alerts and other general information to control box 160, such as traffic conditions, weather conditions, the location and status of material transfer vehicles, and the like.”
RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon Is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Qian et al. US 2023/0160174 A1) teaches, (Abstract) “A speed determination method, an electronic device and a computer storage medium are provided, relates to the field of computer technology, and may be applied to the field of artificial intelligence, especially the field of automated driving. The method includes: determining an expected speed direction of a controlled point of a first controlled target according to an actual location of the controlled point of the first controlled target and a preset trajectory of the controlled point of the first controlled target, wherein the first controlled target is one of a plurality of controlled targets having a kinematic relationship; and determining a target speed of at least one controlled target of the plurality of controlled targets according to the expected speed direction of the controlled point of the first controlled target and the kinematic relationship.”
Jin et al. (US 2025/0146362 A1) teaches, (Paragraph [0194], Lines 1-5) “a method can include rendering a graphical user interface that includes a visualization of at least one of multiple well trajectories and a control point graphical control for adjusting a position of at least one of one or more control points.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights