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 . Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 1/26/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant did not disagree with the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations, therefore 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations are maintained and reiterated below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) filed on 1/26/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 1/26/26. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 103 filed on 1/26/26, regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
Regarding applicants remarks, pages 7-9, asserting the following:
The cited portions of Miyakubo, however, do not disclose a scenario in which travel is stopped upon GPS measurement failure. Stated differently, the cited portions of Miyakubo describe that inertial navigation is always in between GPS measurement failure and stopping the vehicle. Miyakubo also does not describe that a degradation of the inertial navigation leads to stopping the vehicle, but rather describes the trigger to stop the vehicle as a length of time that the GPS measurement failure persists. Therefore, the cited portions of Miyakubo fail to disclose "setting a work mode of the work vehicle either to a first work mode or a second work mode, wherein: in response to a positioning state of the first positioning method being degraded from a predetermined state and the work mode being set to the first work mode, the work vehicle is caused to stop automatic travel," as in claim 1.
The Action has not shown that modifying Miyakubo with Lie would remedy the deficiencies of Miyakubo. For instance, the Action cites Lie for allegedly disclosing a second work mode using a second satellite signal received from the same satellite as the first work mode or a second satellite. See Action at 9. Additionally, Lie describes a method of switching between an RTK positioning method and a relative positioning method upon loss of the RTK signal. See Lie at Abstract. In Lie, "[u]pon loss of the RTK correction signal, the navigation positioning estimator or controller switches to a relative position mode." See Lie at [0004]. Thus, Lie describes a method for retaining positioning information upon loss of a primary signal. Lie does not disclose a mode of operation in which autonomous travel of the work vehicle is halted upon loss of the primary positioning signal. Therefore, Lie fails to disclose "setting a work mode of the work vehicle either to a first work mode or a second work mode, wherein: in response to a positioning state of the first positioning method being degraded from a predetermined state and the work mode being set to the first work mode, the work vehicle is caused to stop automatic travel," as in claim 1.
Regarding the applicant’s assertion that “Miyakubo, however, do not disclose a scenario in which travel is stopped upon GPS measurement failure”, Miyakubo explicitly discloses such a scenario such as “[w]hen the GPS antenna 34 or the mobile communication device 33 has failed, the traveling and the working stop, and a recovery operation such as repairing is performed” (Miyakubo - ¶54). Where the recovery operation is the method described in Figure 4 as reproduced in the applicant’s remarks, page 8, therefore performing the rest of the secondary work mode switch for continued operation under degraded positioning state information as claimed.
Therefore, based on the disclosure of the traveling and work stopping before recovery operation is performed, the rejections 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.
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.
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” or “so that”; 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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim elements interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Claim 9
storage unit – defined Specification ¶22 and ¶43 as a non-volatile memory
Claim 12
positioning processing unit – defined Specification ¶32-33 and ¶50 as computer system
travel processing unit – defined Specification ¶39-40 and ¶50 as electronic circuits
switching processing unit – defined Specification ¶32-33 and ¶50 as electronic circuits
setting processing unit – defined Specification ¶39, ¶42, and ¶50 as electronic circuits
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakubo et al. (US 2018/0215393) in view of Lie et al. (US 2017/0299728).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, Miyakubo discloses an autonomously traveling work vehicle including an automatic travel system/method/non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising (Abstract):
a positioning processing unit that determines position information of a work vehicle using a first positioning method based on a satellite signal received from a satellite (¶30-34 – positioning sensors including satellite positioning sensors for determining the position of a work vehicle with different positioning methods, one of which includes satellite signals from a satellite);
a travel processing unit that causes the work vehicle to automatically travel based on the position information (¶41 – control device utilizes detected positional information from the positioning sensors to perform autonomous traveling and work);
a setting processing unit that sets a work mode of the work vehicle either to a first work mode or a second work mode, wherein in response to a positioning state of the first positioning method being degraded from a predetermined state and the work mode being set to the first work mode, the work vehicle is caused to stop automatic travel, and in response to the positioning state of the first positioning method being degraded from the predetermined state and the work mode being set to the second work mode, the work vehicle is caused to continue automatic travel, the second positioning method having a lower positional accuracy than the first positioning method, and the positioning state indicating an accuracy of the position information determined by the first positioning method (¶54-60 - When the GPS antenna 34 or the mobile communication device 33 has failed or an error has occurred corresponding to the recited positioning processing unit being degraded from a predetermined state since functioning GPS positioning corresponds to the recited predetermined state therefore corresponding to the recited accuracy of the position information determined by the first positioning method being either operational or in failure therefore being accurate or not, where GPS navigation corresponding to the recited a first work mode, cause the work vehicle to stop automatic travel and performing a recovery operation which includes switching to inertial navigation corresponding to the recited second work mode to continue automatic travel where inertial navigation has lower positional accuracy than GPS navigation due to inertial navigation being relative positioning to previous positions where the longer the use of inertial navigation the lower the accuracy of the method),
a switching processing unit that switches between the first positioning method and the second positioning method based on the work mode set by the setting processing unit and the positioning state (¶54-60 and Fig. 4 – work mode and positioning method determined based on detection of degraded positioning processing state corresponding to the recited work mode set by the setting processing unit and the positioning state in the positioning processing unit).
While Miyakubo discloses utilizing a second work mode to continue automatic travel, it does not explicitly disclose the second work mode uses a second satellite signal received from the satellite or a second satellite.
However, Lie discloses a satellite navigation system for switching between satellite based positioning methods including the second work mode causes the work vehicle to continue automatic travel based on second position information of the work vehicle that is determined using a second positioning method based on a second satellite signal received from the satellite or a second satellite (¶33, ¶100, and Fig. 5 – upon loss, interruption or corruption of the RTK signal, the navigation positioning estimator 57 or the mode controller 126 switches to a precise position mode (or an extended RTK position mode) where the precise position mode which may be an extended RTK position mode or DGPS, both of which rely upon utilizing additional satellite information for positioning corresponding to the recited a second positioning method based on a second satellite signal received from the satellite or a second satellite),
The combination of the autonomous vehicle redundant localization method switching system of Miyakubo with the satellite navigation system for switching between satellite based positioning methods of Lie fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous vehicle redundant localization method switching system of Miyakubo with the satellite navigation system for switching between satellite based positioning methods of Lie in order to create a seamless, smooth, and accurate switching between a real-time kinematic mode and a relative positioning mode of position estimation; that supports longer outage periods for the RTK signal (Lie - ¶3).
Regarding claim 2, Miyakubo further discloses based on the work mode being set to the first work mode (¶53-54 and Fig. 4 - while the autonomous traveling and working are in process using GPS navigation corresponding to the recited first work mode being set);
the work vehicle is caused to automatically travel based on the position information by the first positioning method based on the positioning state being the predetermined state (¶53-54 and Fig. 4 – no measurement failure occurred corresponding to the recited predetermined state continue work in autonomous travel mode), and
the work vehicle is caused to stop automatic travel based on the positioning state being degraded from the predetermined state (¶53-54 and Fig. 4 - When the GPS antenna 34 or the mobile communication device 33 has failed corresponding to the recited positioning state being degraded from the predetermined state, the traveling and the working stop).
Regarding claim 4, Miyakubo further discloses based on the work mode being set to the second work mode (¶60 and Fig. 4 – inertial navigation corresponding to the recited second work mode);
the work vehicle is caused to automatically travel based on the position information determined by the first positioning method when the positioning state is the predetermined state (¶60 and Fig. 4 – element S8 if GPS has recovered from measurement failure corresponding to the recited first positioning method based on the positioning state is being the predetermined state switch back to GPS measurement corresponding to the recited first positioning method), and
the work vehicle is caused to automatically travel based on the second position information determined by the second positioning method when the positioning state is being degraded from the predetermined state (¶60 and Fig. 4 – element S8 if GPS has not recovered from measurement failure corresponding to the recited positioning method being degraded from the predetermined state automatically travel based on inertial measurement corresponding to the recited second positioning method).
Regarding claim 5, Miyakubo further discloses automatic travel of the work vehicle is started using the first positioning method based on the positioning state being the predetermined state (¶53-54 - autonomous traveling and working are in process utilizing GPS measurements without failure corresponding to the recited started using first positioning method based on the positioning state being the predetermined state).
Regarding claim 6, Miyakubo further discloses the work mode is set based on a selection operation to select either the first work mode or the second work mode by a user (¶58-59 – operator can switch the mode of traveling where the mode can be switched to inertial navigation through the display. Operator switching to manual traveling mode is explicitly disclosed and the mode being switched to inertial navigation, and the control similar to that described above implicitly discloses the operator can switch the modes between GPS navigation and inertial navigation corresponding to the recited first and second work modes therefore disclosing the user can set the work mode).
Regarding claim 7, Miyakubo further discloses causing an operation terminal to display the positioning state (¶57 – generated map corresponding to the recited positioning state can be displayed on the host computer corresponding to the recited operation terminal); and
accepting the selection operation at the operation terminal based on the positioning state being degraded from the predetermined state while the work vehicle is traveling automatically (¶60 and Fig. 4 – every iteration of confirmed measurement failure and continued switch to inertial navigation corresponding to the recited accepting the selection operation based on the positioning state being degraded from the predetermined state while the work vehicle is traveling automatically).
Regarding claim 8, Miyakubo further discloses permitting acceptance of the selection operation to select the second work mode for a first area within a field (¶60 and Fig. 4 – permitting operation in inertial navigation mode for a set distance corresponding to the recited permitting a selection operation in a second work mode for a first area); and
prohibiting acceptance of the selection operation to select the second work mode for a second area outside the first area within the field (¶60 and Fig. 4 – stop work once the vehicle has traveled beyond the set distance corresponding to the recited prohibiting acceptance of a selection operation to select the second work mode for a second area outside the first area).
Regarding claim 9, Miyakubo further discloses wherein the work mode is set based on a past positioning state associated with a current position information by referring to a storage unit that stores, in association with one another, the positioning state and the position information of past traveling of the work vehicle (¶63 – when a historic failure has occurred corresponding to the recited past positioning state countermeasures are prepared to continue work in process corresponding to the recited set work mode based on past positioning state utilizing stored positioning state and information which are stored in association with one another).
Regarding claim 10, Miyakubo further discloses wherein the work mode is set based on a type of a work machine mounted on the work vehicle or a work content of the work vehicle (¶50 and ¶57 – position measurement failure is assessed as usable for different types of work corresponding to the recited work mode set based on work content of the vehicle and status of the work machine including type of work machine).
Regarding claim 11, Miyakubo further discloses causing an operation terminal to display an image representing the positioning state; and causing the image to be displayed in a display mode according to the positioning state (¶57 – generated map corresponding to the recited image representing the positioning state can be displayed on the host computer corresponding to the recited operation terminal to display the image in a display mode).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mori (US 2002/0099481) discloses a travel controlling system for an unmanned vehicle including utilizing supplementary positioning systems and stopping the vehicle upon detection of a GPS abnormality (Abstract and Fig. 9).
Ogura et al. (US 2017/0168501) discloses an autonomous work vehicle traveling method including detecting abnormal values in GPS data before stopping and performing an interruption resolving method to continue work (¶114-120).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665