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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following is an office action in response to the communication filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 7 are currently amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 7 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. The term “immediate vicinity” in claims 1 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “immediate vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim limitation “. . . wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section . . .” is therefore rendered indefinite and cannot be given patentable weight. Resultingly, the examiner is interpreting this claim limitation to mean “. . . wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is located within the unpaved terrain section . . .”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al. (US 20190124819 A1; hereinafter Madsen) in view of Zych (US 9062983 B2; hereinafter Zych).
Regarding claim 1, Madsen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
An autonomously driving vehicle for traveling on an unpaved terrain section, comprising a communication device for communicating with an assessment device for assessing a drivability of the terrain section by the vehicle and for communicating with a control device for autonomously controlling the vehicle on the terrain section (see Madsen at least [0004] “Vehicle control systems may be used to automatically or semi-automatically move a vehicle along a desired path.”; [0049] “Similarly, the system may . . . determining whether a particular vehicle is capable of traversing the body of water.”; [0052] “The system may transmit (e.g., using transceiver B160 in FIG. 1B) an electronic communication comprising the three-dimensional map to another system or device, such as a vehicle control system.”; [0058] “Among other things, embodiments of the present disclosure may utilize 3D terrain maps to help improve the steering performance of vehicle control systems, particularly in uneven or rolling terrain.”; [0067] “. . . the system may utilize data from a sensor system (e.g., including a lidar sensor and/or image capturing device) to evaluate if the terrain feature is passable and then modify the path, speed, or other characteristic of the vehicle (if necessary) in order to traverse the terrain feature in an optimal manner.”), wherein the assessment device comprises:
a soil condition determination device for determining at least one condition parameter, which is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section (see Madsen at least [0144] “. . . the system may analyze the type of soil in a section of terrain . . . In a specific example, the system may opt to avoid traversing very sandy soil in favor of traversing a nearby patch of gravel to avoid slippage of the wheels of the vehicle.”);
a storage device, in which a drivability dependence of acquired historical slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter is stored (see Madsen at least [0019] “The memory B120 may store any computer-readable instructions and data . . .”; [0109] “The rate of slippage may be recorded and added to the 3D terrain map to aid in planning future vehicle paths.”);
wherein the historical slipping data is acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevails at the same point in time, and wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section (see Madsen at least [0056] “The 3D terrain map may also be generated based on data from other sources, such as historical data (e.g., previously-generated terrain maps) [(i.e., references previously collected historical data from that contains the following information including soil conditions)], weather information, and information regarding the terrain, such as soil information, depreciation information, the expected evaporation of water based on soil type, etc.”; [0101] “. . . embodiments of the present disclosure can help optimize the usage of a vehicle by predicting the wheel slippage of the vehicle on the path ahead of the vehicle [(i.e., prior to the vehicle being within the unpaved terrain section)]. For example, optimal wheel slip depends on the soil type (e.g., concrete, firm soil, tilled soil, or soft/sandy soil), but are typically in the range 8 to 15% slip.”; [0114] “. . . the system may analyze the type of soil in a section of terrain (e.g., based on data from the 3D terrain map . . . ) to determine whether to traverse a section of terrain. In a specific example, the system may opt to avoid traversing very sandy soil in favor of traversing a nearby patch of gravel to avoid slippage of the wheels of the vehicle.”; [0115] “Such images may be taken of regions of interest in front of the vehicle [(i.e., prior to the vehicle being within the unpaved terrain section)] . . .”); and
an evaluation device which, based on the drivability dependence and the determined condition parameter, determines a discrete drivability prediction of the terrain section by the vehicle (see Madsen at least [0049] “Similarly, the system may . . . determining whether a particular vehicle is capable of traversing the body of water.”; [0067] “. . . the system may utilize data from a sensor system (e.g., including a lidar sensor and/or image capturing device) to evaluate if the terrain feature is passable and then modify the path, speed, or other characteristic of the vehicle (if necessary) in order to traverse the terrain feature in an optimal manner.”);
wherein the control device is designed to control the vehicle based on the drivability prediction to drive on the terrain section (see Madsen at least [0029] “Guidance processor 6 electrically communicates with, and provides control data to a steering control system 166 (also referred to herein as an ‘auto-steering system’) for controlling operation of the vehicle.”; [0058] “. . . utilize 3D terrain maps to help improve the steering performance of vehicle control systems . . .”; [0066] “. . . provide automatic or semi-automatic steering systems that evaluate the terrain to be traversed by a vehicle based on historic map data (e.g., from a 3D terrain map) and/or from sensor data collected in real-time or near-real-time.”).
While Madsen discloses the historical slipping data being acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time, and wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section, it does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time is the at least one soil condition parameter that is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section.
Zych teaches that the at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time is the at least one soil condition parameter that is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section (see Zych at least pg. 24, col. 17/18, lines 56-67/1-8 “. . . historical satellite information (e.g., year-old hyperspectral imagery) is utilized to generate the expected acoustic characteristics. By way of example, process 1400 may include analyzing the historical satellite information to generate a base value that may be confirmed . . . based on the sensor data.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the historical slipping data being acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time, and wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section of Madsen with the at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time being the at least one soil condition parameter that is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section as taught by Zych to have the historical slipping data be acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevail at the same point in time, wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section. Doing so would serve as a means to confirm that the historical data being relied upon in the system of Madsen is pertinent to the navigation at hand and therefore improve the accuracy of downstream functions.
Regarding claim 2, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
. . . further comprising a slip detection device for detecting current slipping data of the vehicle when driving on the terrain section, wherein the storage device is designed to store the acquired current slipping data together with the determined current condition parameter (see Madsen at least [0019] “The memory B120 may store any computer-readable instructions and data . . .”; [0101] “. . . predicting the wheel slippage of the vehicle on the path ahead of the vehicle . . . optimal wheel slip depends on the soil type (e.g., concrete, firm soil, tilled soil, or soft/sandy soil) . . .”).
Regarding claim 6, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
. . . wherein the control device has a decision device, which is designed to decide on the basis of the discrete drivability prediction whether and/or where the autonomously driving vehicle is to travel on the unpaved terrain section (see Madsen at least [0063] “The system may determine a path for the vehicle . . .”; [0077] “. . . the system may determine a respective expected time for the vehicle to traverse each of a plurality of potential paths for the vehicle, and determine the path of the vehicle based on the determined traversal times . . .”).
Regarding claim 7, Madsen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
A computer-implemented control method for controlling an autonomously driving vehicle (see Madsen at least [0004] “Vehicle control systems may be used to automatically or semi-automatically move a vehicle along a desired path.”; [0060] “. . . method 400 that may be implemented by a vehicle control system (e.g., the systems depicted in FIGS. 1A, 1B, and/or 2).”; [0084] “Method 500 may be performed by a vehicle implement control system (e.g., control system B100 shown in FIG. 1B).”), the computer-implemented control method comprising:
determining at least one condition parameter, which is representative of a current soil condition of an unpaved terrain section (see Madsen at least [0144] “. . . the system may analyze the type of soil in a section of terrain . . . In a specific example, the system may opt to avoid traversing very sandy soil in favor of traversing a nearby patch of gravel to avoid slippage of the wheels of the vehicle.”);
determining a discrete drivability prediction of the terrain section by the vehicle based on the determined condition parameter and a drivability dependence of acquired historic slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter (see Madsen at least [0049] “Similarly, the system may . . . determining whether a particular vehicle is capable of traversing the body of water.”; [0056] “The 3D terrain map may also be generated based on data from other sources, such as historical data (e.g., previously-generated terrain maps) . . .”; [0067] “. . . the system may utilize data from a sensor system (e.g., including a lidar sensor and/or image capturing device) to evaluate if the terrain feature is passable and then modify the path, speed, or other characteristic of the vehicle (if necessary) in order to traverse the terrain feature in an optimal manner.”; [0109] “The rate of slippage may be recorded and added to the 3D terrain map to aid in planning future vehicle paths.”);
wherein the historical slipping data is acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevails at the same point in time, and wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section (see Madsen at least [0056] “The 3D terrain map may also be generated based on data from other sources, such as historical data (e.g., previously-generated terrain maps) [(i.e., references previously collected historical data from that contains the following information including soil conditions)], weather information, and information regarding the terrain, such as soil information, depreciation information, the expected evaporation of water based on soil type, etc.”; [0101] “. . . embodiments of the present disclosure can help optimize the usage of a vehicle by predicting the wheel slippage of the vehicle on the path ahead of the vehicle [(i.e., prior to the vehicle being within the unpaved terrain section)]. For example, optimal wheel slip depends on the soil type (e.g., concrete, firm soil, tilled soil, or soft/sandy soil), but are typically in the range 8 to 15% slip.”; [0114] “. . . the system may analyze the type of soil in a section of terrain (e.g., based on data from the 3D terrain map . . . ) to determine whether to traverse a section of terrain. In a specific example, the system may opt to avoid traversing very sandy soil in favor of traversing a nearby patch of gravel to avoid slippage of the wheels of the vehicle.”; [0115] “Such images may be taken of regions of interest in front of the vehicle [(i.e., prior to the vehicle being within the unpaved terrain section)] . . .”); and
controlling the autonomously driving vehicle based on the drivability prediction (see Madsen at least [0029] “Guidance processor 6 electrically communicates with, and provides control data to a steering control system 166 (also referred to herein as an ‘auto-steering system’) for controlling operation of the vehicle.”; [0058] “. . . utilize 3D terrain maps to help improve the steering performance of vehicle control systems . . .”; [0066] “. . . provide automatic or semi-automatic steering systems that evaluate the terrain to be traversed by a vehicle based on historic map data (e.g., from a 3D terrain map) and/or from sensor data collected in real-time or near-real-time.”).
While Madsen discloses the historical slipping data being acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time, and wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section, it does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time is the at least one soil condition parameter that is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section.
Zych teaches that the at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time is the at least one soil condition parameter that is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section (see Zych at least pg. 24, col. 17/18, lines 56-67/1-8 “. . . historical satellite information (e.g., year-old hyperspectral imagery) is utilized to generate the expected acoustic characteristics. By way of example, process 1400 may include analyzing the historical satellite information to generate a base value that may be confirmed . . . based on the sensor data.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the historical slipping data being acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time, and wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section of Madsen with the at least one condition parameter prevailing at the same point in time being the at least one soil condition parameter that is representative of a current soil condition of the terrain section as taught by Zych to have the historical slipping data be acquired at a point in time, and at least one condition parameter prevail at the same point in time, wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is in an immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section. Doing so would serve as a means to confirm that the historical data being relied upon in the system of Madsen is pertinent to the navigation at hand and therefore improve the accuracy of downstream functions.
Regarding claim 8, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 7 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Madsen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein it is decided based on the discrete drivability prediction whether and/or where the autonomously driving vehicle is to travel on the unpaved terrain section (see Madsen at least [0063] “The system may determine a path for the vehicle . . .”; [0077] “. . . the system may determine a respective expected time for the vehicle to traverse each of a plurality of potential paths for the vehicle, and determine the path of the vehicle based on the determined traversal times . . .”).
Regarding claim 9, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 7 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Madsen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the current slipping data of the vehicle is detected when driving on the terrain section and, based thereon, an updated drivability dependence of the acquired current slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter is learned (see Madsen at least [0107] “. . . measuring slippage of the vehicle while traversing a section of terrain . . .”; [0108] “. . . the system may determine whether the section of terrain is traversable by the vehicle without slipping, as well as predicting a degree of slippage (e.g., as a percentage described above) the vehicle is likely to experience traversing the section of terrain.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Zych and further in view of Endo et al. (JP 2024122823 A; hereinafter Endo).
Regarding claim 3, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 2 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Madsen discloses using a terrain map and slipping data to determine drivability and leveraging machine learning for terrain map optimization (see Madsen at least [0050] “. . . the system may indicate a path for one or more vehicles on the 3D terrain map.”; [0057] “. . . use machine learning to optimize maps using sensor input analysis algorithms and controllers to improve performance.”; [0101] “. . . predicting the wheel slippage of the vehicle on the path ahead of the vehicle . . . optimal wheel slip depends on the soil type (e.g., concrete, firm soil, tilled soil, or soft/sandy soil) . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the storage device having a machine learning device, which is designed for machine learning of an updated drivability dependence of the acquired current slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter.
Endo teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the storage device has a machine learning device, which is designed for machine learning of an updated drivability dependence of the acquired current slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter (see Endo at least pg. 3, paragraph 8 “. . . a machine learning model (risk estimation model) that estimates the risk of AMR movement according to the type of terrain (e.g., rollover or getting stuck due to wheel slippage, etc.) . . .”; pg. 11, paragraph 7 “. . . the information processing device 10 functionally comprises . . . a learning unit 38 . . . Each functional configuration is realized by the CPU 12 reading out an information processing program stored in the storage device 16 . . .”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the using a terrain map and slipping data to determine drivability and leveraging machine learning for terrain map optimization of Madsen with the storage device having a machine learning device, which is designed for machine learning of an updated drivability dependence of the acquired current slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter as taught by Endo to have a storage device that has a machine learning device, which is designed for machine learning of an updated drivability dependence of the acquired current slipping data of the vehicle on the condition parameter. Doing so would allow the drivability determination to account for misclassifications of the type of terrain or area, as recognized by Endo (see Endo at least pg. 2, paragraph 5 ". . . serves as an index for estimating risk for each position in a target range, taking into account misclassification of the type of area or space.").
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Zych and further in view of van Diggelen et al. (van Diggelen, Frank, Enge, Per, "The World’s first GPS MOOC and Worldwide Laboratory using Smartphones," Proceedings of the 28th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2015), Tampa, Florida, September 2015, pp. 361-369.; hereinafter Diggelen).
Regarding claim 4, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
. . . wherein the soil condition determination device is designed to determine the current condition parameter with a GNSS system, and to receive a current condition parameter determined outside the autonomously driving vehicle (see Madsen at least [0023] “. . . positioning system may include a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) . . .”; [0073] “. . . enhance the capability of control systems for vehicles with limited positioning systems (e.g., only GNSS) by utilizing the information from the vehicle's positioning system in conjunction with the information in the 3D terrain map.”).
While Madsen discloses the soil condition determination device being designed to determine the current condition parameter with a GNSS system, it does not appear to explicitly disclose a GNSS position accuracy of less than 5 meters.
Diggelen teaches GNSS having a measured mean accuracy of less than 5 meters (see Diggelen at least Abstract “Open-sky GNSS accuracy . . . has often been claimed to be ‘about 5 meters’ . . . In this lab, with over one thousand participants in one hundred countries, the measured mean accuracy, remarkably, came to 4.9 meters.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the oil condition determination device being designed to determine the current condition parameter with a GNSS system of Madsen with the GNSS having a measured mean accuracy of less than 5 meters as taught by Diggelen to determine the current condition parameter with a GNSS position accuracy of less than 5 m. Doing so would bring the accuracy of measurements used for the claimed purposes in line with modern technological capacity.
Regarding claim 5, Madsen and Zych disclose the subject matter of claim 2 as recited in the claim and applied above.
. . . wherein the slip detection device is designed to acquire the slipping data with a GNSS system (see Madsen at least [0023] “. . . positioning system may include a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) . . .”; [0073] “. . . enhance the capability of control systems for vehicles with limited positioning systems (e.g., only GNSS) by utilizing the information from the vehicle's positioning system in conjunction with the information in the 3D terrain map.”; [101] “. . . optimize the usage of a vehicle by predicting the wheel slippage of the vehicle on the path ahead of the vehicle.”).
While Madsen discloses the slip detection device being designed to acquire the slipping data with a GNSS system, it does not appear to explicitly disclose a GNSS position accuracy of less than 5 meters.
Diggelen teaches GNSS having a measured mean accuracy of less than 5 meters (see Diggelen at least Abstract “Open-sky GNSS accuracy . . . has often been claimed to be ‘about 5 meters’ . . . In this lab, with over one thousand participants in one hundred countries, the measured mean accuracy, remarkably, came to 4.9 meters.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the slip detection device being designed to acquire the slipping data with a GNSS system of Madsen with the GNSS having a measured mean accuracy of less than 5 meters as taught by Diggelen to have the slip detection device be designed to acquire the slipping data with a GNSS position accuracy of less than 5 m. Doing so would bring the accuracy of measurements used for the claimed purposes in line with modern technological capacity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “As mentioned, the claims have been amended to recite that the historical slipping data is acquired at a point in time, and the at least one condition parameter prevails at the same point in time, and that the point of time is before the vehicle is in the immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section. The cited references do not teach these features.
“Madsen teaches that his system ‘helps to create a better estimation of the current terrain and be able to better accommodate for changes.’ In other words, Madsen assumes the vehicle is moving and makes on-the-fly navigation decisions based upon current (not historic) sensor information. This is confirmed by his description that his approach can be used to "help speed up or slow down the vehicle (e.g., via an automatic or semi-automatic vehicle control system) to increase comfort to an operator, or to traverse a stretch of rough terrain to reduce strain on vehicles and tools." In all cases, the Madsen system makes terrain determinations and then immediately changes vehicle operation because Madsen's vehicle is in the immediate vicinity of the terrain. See Madsen, paragraph [0042].
“Although Madsen does state that his system can ‘evaluate the terrain to be traversed by a vehicle based on historic map data (e.g., from a 3D terrain map)’ he also states that his system must also use ‘sensor data collected in real-time or near-real-time.’ See Madsen, paragraph [0066]. In other words, Madsen always uses current sensor data.
“By contrast, the claims have been amended to recite that the historical slipping data is acquired at a point in time, and the at least one condition parameter prevails at the same point in time, and that the point of time is before the vehicle is in the immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section. The claimed subject matter allows decisions to be made far before the vehicle comes into the immediate vicinity of the terrain. In addition to minimizing risk to the vehicle, the claimed approach allows the optimization of the use and deployment of the vehicle (and other vehicles). For example, the number of vehicles to deploy and areas for the deployment of these vehicles can be adjusted before these vehicles enter problematic areas of terrain. This results in an optimized, efficient, and cost-effective vehicle deployment and is simply not contemplated or possible with the Madsen system.
“The other references are silent as to these claimed features.
“Since at least one claim feature is not taught or suggested by the references, it is respectfully submitted that the claims are allowable.
“There would also be no reason to modify Madsen to include the claimed subject matter. As mentioned, Madsen does not contemplate or address the issue of optimal vehicle placement and usage. Consequently, any modification of Madsen to include the claimed subject matter would necessarily rely on the applicant's own teachings as providing the motivation and this would amount to an improper hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. The claims are allowable for these additional reasons,” (from remarks pg. 5-7).
As to Point (A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that the amended claims are distinct over the prior art in that the amended claims require historical data to be utilized in advance of a vehicle navigating an unpaved terrain section. Specifically, the claims now recite the limitation “. . . the point of time is before the vehicle is in the immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section . . .” As noted above, the term “immediate vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim limitation is therefore rendered indefinite and cannot be given patentable weight. Resultingly, the examiner is interpreting this claim limitation to mean “. . . wherein the point of time is before the vehicle is located within the unpaved terrain section . . .” which the prior art reference does disclose since the unpaved terrain section of interest precedes the vehicle in the disclosure. See the 35 U.S.C §103 rejection of claims 1 and 7 above. The prior art reference Madsen does not explicitly disclose the current soil condition prevailing at the time that the historical data is collected. However, Zych, as applied above, discloses this feature in the same field of invention- vehicle navigation. Applicant further argues that any combination of references to teach the amended features would amount to improper hindsight reasoning on the basis of the claims reciting the limitation “. . . the point of time is before the vehicle is in the immediate vicinity of the unpaved terrain section . . .” However, the scope of the limitation, as indicated above, is rendered indefinite and the interpretation of the claim for the sake of examination requires no combination of references to teach. Furthermore, the combination of the prior art references supplied above does not rely upon improper hindsight reasoning, as the references are directed toward the same field of invention- vehicle navigation- and have a motivation to combine that amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 TABITHA KRESS whose telephone number is (703) 756-1763. The examiner can normally be reached MTWR 06:30-16:30 CST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/TABITHA KRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/23/26
Prosecution Insights