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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 1 have been fully considered but are found to be unpersuasive at this time.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed toward: “…a first unknown object along the first work path after traveling a first portion of the first work path”
Flyglare discloses wherein [0033] the applications may include applications for controlling the robotic vehicle 10 relative to various operations including determining the existence and/or position of obstacles (e.g., static or dynamic) and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate… controlling the robotic vehicle 10 and it components relative to the detected position, obstacles, and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate. As such, it is the Examiner’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that Flyglare teaches a system wherein a vehicle is configured to detect obstacles, known or unknown, along a working path and/or any subsection/portion of the working path during operation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed toward: “…a first unknown object along the first work path after traveling a first portion of the first work path”
Flyglare teaches a first working path 290 and is configured to detect an obstacle at any time during operation [0033]. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the system of Flyglare is configured to detect obstacles before, during, or after any portion of a working path is traversed during operations.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed toward: “…a sequence of detecting an object along a first path, then determining a second path accordingly”
This feature is not disclosed within the presented claim matter. Intendent claim 1 discloses wherein:
“… first unknown object along the first work path after traveling a first portion of the first work path, wherein the first portion is associated with a first subsection of the geographical area; determining, with the electronic processor, a second work path for continuing the mowing event”
As quoted above, the claimed subject matter merely discloses “continuing” a mowing event and as such does not carry a special definition as implied by applicant’s remarks beyond a broadest reasonable interpretation of “continue”.
It is suggested the claimed feature(s) be amended to provide clarity regarding this matter.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed toward: “…determining a second path”
Arguments have been found unpersuasive, Examiner notes Flyglare discloses a second working path 295.
Amendments to the claim(s) have been reviewed, 112(b) rejections of the previous office action have been withdrawn accordingly.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1).
In re claim 1. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses A method of controlling [0023] a power machine ([FIG.1] robotic vehicle 10), the method comprising: determining, with an electronic processor ([FIG.2] processor 112, processing circuity 110), a first work path [first work path 290] for a mowing event associated with a geographical area [FIG.2-3];
controlling, with the electronic processor, the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along at least a portion of the first work path ([0050; FIG.4] … robotic vehicle 10 traverses the first work path 290 to mow a first section of the parcel 20 [0051] …based on the conditions encountered by the robotic vehicle 10);
detecting, with the electronic processor based on receiving sensor signals, a first unknown object along the first work path after traveling a first portion of the first work path ([0033] Alternatively or additionally, the applications may include applications for controlling the robotic vehicle 10 relative to various operations including determining the existence and/or position of obstacles (e.g., static or dynamic) and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate.), wherein the first portion is associated with a first subsection of the geographical area ([0050; FIG.4] first section of the parcel 20);
determining, with the electronic processor, a second work path (second working path 295) for continuing the mowing event, the second work path associated with a second subsection of the geographical area remaining after the power machine travels along the first portion of the first work path ([0051; FIG.4] In order to mow the second section, the robotic vehicle 10 must travel from the first working path 290 to the second working path 295.);
and controlling, with the electronic processor, the power machine to continue performing the mowing event by traveling along at least a portion of the second work path [0051; FIG.4].
In re claim 2. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a second unknown object ([0033] Alternatively or additionally, the applications may include applications for controlling the robotic vehicle 10 relative to various operations including determining the existence and/or position of obstacles (e.g., static or dynamic) and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate. Examiner’s Note: It should be noted that the system of Flygare is configured to determine the determining the existence and/or position of obstacles; as such a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the system of Flygare is capable of detecting one or more obstacles to include a “second” object” and secondary/additional paths associated with avoiding determined objects) along the second work path after traveling a second portion of the second work path ([FIG.3] path 220 [FIG.4] path 295), wherein the second portion is associated with a fourth subsection of the geographical area ([0051] In order to mow the second section, the robotic vehicle 10 must travel from the first working path 290 to the second working path 295.);
determining a third work path ([FIG.3] 260) for continuing the mowing event, the third work path associated with a fourth subsection of the geographical area ([FIG.3] third area bounded by House, Gravel path, and Asphalt driveway) remaining after the power machine travels along the first portion of the first work path and the second portion of the second work path [0051; FIG.3];
and controlling the power machine to continue performing the mowing event by traveling along at least a portion of the third work path ([0046] As further shown in FIG. 3, the robotic vehicle 10 may encounter a situation while working the parcel 20 that will also require the robotic vehicle 10 to take path 260 in order to continue along path 220 and continue the mowing operation on the parcel 20.).
In re claim 3. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first work path includes accessing a user input associated with at least one of: a known object within the geographical area ([FIG.3] House, Gravel path, Asphalt driveway), a boundary parameter for the geographical area, a starting point of the mowing event ([0022] … vehicle 10 relative to boundaries or other points of interest (e.g., a starting point or other key features) of the parcel 20), an ending point of the mowing event, or at least one parameter of the mowing event ([0042] It should be understood that the mapping module 70 may already be oriented with the types of surfaces the robotic vehicle 10 will encounter when traversing the parcel 20 based on a stored map inputted via the user or the like, and the mapping module 70 may be configured to confirm the surface type as the robotic vehicle 10 traverses the parcel 20.).
In re claim 7. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the first unknown object includes: while the power machine travels along the first work path, receiving sensor data associated with the power machine ([0021] Furthermore, the sensor network 90 may detect objects or gather data regarding the surroundings of the robotic vehicle 10 while the parcel 20 is traversed... The sensors may also detect objects, collision, tipping over, or various fault conditions.), and detecting the first unknown object based on the sensor data ([0033] …Alternatively or additionally, the applications may include applications for controlling the robotic vehicle 10 relative to various operations including determining the existence and/or position of obstacles (e.g., static or dynamic) and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate.).
In re claim 8. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses A power machine (10) comprising: a main frame ([0023] drive system);
a work element coupled to the main frame ([0023, 0027] cutting blades);
a plurality of electrical actuators coupled to the main frame ([0027] wheel assembly);
an electrical power source configured to power the plurality of electrical actuators ([0023] battery);
and an electronic controller ([FIG.2] processor 112, processing circuity 110) in communication with the plurality of electrical actuators [FIG.1-2], the electronic controller configured to: control the power machine to perform a mowing event associated with a geographical area by traveling along at least a portion of a first work path determined for the geographical area ([0050; FIG.4] … robotic vehicle 10 traverses the first work path 290 to mow a first section of the parcel 20 [0051] …based on the conditions encountered by the robotic vehicle 10);
detect, based on receiving sensor signals, a first unknown object along the first work path after the power machine travels a first portion of the first work path ([0033] Alternatively or additionally, the applications may include applications for controlling the robotic vehicle 10 relative to various operations including determining the existence and/or position of obstacles (e.g., static or dynamic) and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate.), wherein the first portion is associated with a first subsection of the geographical area ([0050; FIG.4] first section of the parcel 20);
determine a second work path for continuing the mowing event (second working path 295), the second work path associated with a second subsection of the geographical area remaining after the power machine travels along the first portion of the first work path ([0051; FIG.4] In order to mow the second section, the robotic vehicle 10 must travel from the first working path 290 to the second working path 295.);
and control the power machine to continue performing the mowing event by traveling along at least a portion of the second work path [0051; FIG.4].
In re claim 9. The limitations of claim 9 and similar in scope to those disclosed in claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, please see in re claim 3 for more information.
In re claim 16. The limitations of claim 16 and similar in scope to those disclosed in claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, please see in re claim 2 for more information.
In re claim 19. A mower ([FIG.1] robotic vehicle 10) comprising:
a main frame ([0023] drive system);
a power source ([0023] battery);
a cutting assembly coupled to the main frame and configured to be powered by the power source for cutting operations ([0023, 0027] The batteries may power a drive system and a blade control system of the robotic vehicle 10.);
one or more drive motors ([0038] motor) coupled to the main frame and configured to be powered by the power source to move the mower over terrain during cutting operations ([0023, 0027] The batteries may power a drive system and a blade control system of the robotic vehicle 10… wheel assembly);
a radar system arranged to monitor an area around the mower ([0022] If a sensor network 90 is employed, the sensor network 90 may include sensors related to positional determination (e.g., a GPS receiver, an accelerometer, a camera, a radar transmitter/detector, an ultrasonic sensor, a laser scanner and/or the like));
and an electronic controller ([FIG.2] processor 112, processing circuity 110) in communication with the one or more drive motors and the radar system [FIG.2], the electronic controller configured to: control the mower to perform a mowing event associated with a geographical area by traveling along at least a portion of a first work path determined for the geographical area ([FIG.2] processor 112, processing circuity 110);
detect, based on receiving signals from the radar system, a first unknown object along the first work path after the mower travels a first portion of the first work path ([0033] Alternatively or additionally, the applications may include applications for controlling the robotic vehicle 10 relative to various operations including determining the existence and/or position of obstacles (e.g., static or dynamic) and borders relative to which the robotic vehicle 10 must navigate.), wherein the first portion is associated with a first subsection of the geographical area ([0050; FIG.4] first section of the parcel 20);
and after detecting the first unknown object, determine a second work path for continuing the mowing event beyond the first unknown object (second working path 295), the second work path associated with a second subsection of the geographical area remaining after the mower travels along the first portion of the first work path ([0051; FIG.4] In order to mow the second section, the robotic vehicle 10 must travel from the first working path 290 to the second working path 295.);
and control the mower to continue performing the mowing event by traveling along at least a portion of the second work path [0051; FIG.4].
In re claim 20. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses The mower of claim 19, wherein the first work path and the second work path collectively route the mower to mow an entirety of the geographical area [FIG.3], excluding known obstacles and designated avoidance zones ([FIG.3] House, Gravel Path, Asphalt Driveway).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1), as applied to claim 1 and 8 above and further in view of Cui (US-20240085919-A1).
In re claim 4. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first work path (first working path 290) includes: generating the geographical area into a map ([0040] Thus, the mapping module 70 may include components that enable a map to be generated from sensor data gathered by the robotic vehicle 10 responsive to movement of the robotic vehicle 10 about the parcel 20… or may enable such data to be correlated to map data to allow the robotic vehicle 10 to reconcile its position with a map.), …;
and determining the first path (first working path 290; [FIG.4]).
Flygare lacks the following underlined limitations:
decomposing the geographical area into a first set of cells, wherein each cell included in the first set of cells does not include an object;
and determining the first path based on the first set of cells.
Regarding the limitation; Cui (US-20240085919-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a working region to be mowed defined by a set of cells wherein obstacles are only contained within non-working cells ([0064; FIG.3] In a specific example of the present disclosure, the working region and the non-working region are respectively marked by binary values “0” and “1”; “0” indicates the working region, that is, the region in the lawn that needs to be mowed; “1” indicates the non-working region, that is, the non-working region except the region that needs to be mowed; in the specific example shown in FIG. 1, the boundary line, the outside of the boundary line and the obstacles are all non-working regions; ...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include decomposing the geographical area into a first set of cells, wherein each cell included in the first set of cells does not include an object with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Cui, for the benefit of configuring a system to identify and define geographic areas for predetermined working operations; preventing unwanted operations outside of boundary lines or through hazardous obstacles and improving robotic traversal [0010].
In re claim 10. The limitations of claim 10 and similar in scope to those disclosed in claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, please see in re claim 4 for more information.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) and Cui (US-20240085919-A1), as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Young (US-7734387-B1).
In re claim 5. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) lacks The method of claim 4, wherein determining the first work path includes: determining an order of the first set of cells based on a shortest path between each cell included in the first set of cells;
and determining the first path based on the order of the first set of cells, wherein controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along the first work path includes controlling the power machine to travel along the first work path based on the order of the first set of cells, wherein the power machine travels in a first direction along the first work path by traveling successively to each cell included in the first set of cells based on the order of the first set of cells.
Regarding the limitation; Young (US-7734387-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of a consideration for determining an order of the first set of cells based on a shortest path between each cell included in the first set of cells [FIG.11];
and determining the first path based on the order of the first set of cells, wherein controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event (see Flygare above) by traveling along the first work path includes controlling the power machine to travel along the first work path based on the order of the first set of cells, wherein the power machine travels in a first direction along the first work path by traveling successively to each cell included in the first set of cells based on the order of the first set of cells (order of cells from location (126) to end point (128) [FIG.11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include determining an order based on a shortest path between each cell to control in controlling a power machine to travel along said path as disclosed within claim 5 with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Young, for the benefit of providing an efficient mode of travel wherein a polygonal path between two points establishes a shortest path of travel, saving time and energy in travel operations.
In re claim 6. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) lacks The method of claim 4, wherein determining the first path based on the first set of cells includes determining an intracellular path for each cell included in the first set of cells;
wherein controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along the first work path includes controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along each intracellular path associated with the first set of cells based on the order of the first set of cells;
and wherein determining the intracellular path includes determining a pattern of travel within a cell included in the first set of cells such that the power machine entirely traverses the cell.
Regarding the limitation; Young (US-7734387-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of a consideration for determining the first path based on the first set of cells includes determining an intracellular path for each cell included in the first set of cells; [FIG.11];
wherein controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along the first work path includes controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along each intracellular path associated with the first set of cells based on the order of the first set of cells (order of cells from location (126) to end point (128) [FIG.11]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include determining an intercellular path as disclosed within claim 6 with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Young, for the benefit of providing an efficient mode of travel wherein a polygonal path between two points establishes a shortest path of travel, saving time and energy in travel operations.
However; Young lacks distinct disclosure regarding: determining the intracellular path includes determining a pattern of travel within a cell included in the first set of cells such that the power machine entirely traverses the cell.
Regarding the remaining limitation; Cui (US-20240085919-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for determining a pattern of travel within a cell included in the first set of cells such that the power machine entirely traverses the cell [FIG.5-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare and Young, as disclosed above, to include determining the intracellular path includes determining a pattern of travel within a cell included in the first set of cells such that the power machine entirely traverses the cell with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Cui, for the benefit of providing an operational path which accounts for an area covered by working cells within a geographical area, ensuring all operational areas are addressed throughout the movement path associated with the operation of a work vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) and Cui (US-20240085919-A1), as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Young (US-7734387-B1).
In re claim 11. The limitations of claim 11 and similar in scope to those disclosed in claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, please see in re claim 5 for more information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include determining an order based on a shortest path between each cell to control in controlling a power machine to travel along said path with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by the combination of Young and Cui, for the benefit of providing an efficient mode of travel wherein a polygonal path between two points establishes a shortest path of travel, saving time and energy in travel operations.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1), Cui (US-20240085919-A1), and Young (US-7734387-B1), as applied to claim 11.
In re claim 12. The limitations of claim 12 and similar in scope to those disclosed in claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, please see in re claim 6 for more information.
In re claim 13. The limitations of claim 13 and similar in scope to those disclosed in claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, please see in re claim 6 for more information.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1), as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Kulkarni (US-20210064043-A1).
In re claim 14. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) lacks The power machine of claim 8, wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: decomposing the second subsection of the geographical area into a second set of cells, wherein each cell included in the second set of cells is object free;
and determining the second path based on the second set of cells.
Regarding the remaining limitation; Kulkarni (US-20210064043-A1) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for sensor fusion for localization and path planning. Kulkarni further discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: decomposing the second subsection of the geographical area into a second set of cells ([0247] The processor 140 provides a first flag to a first portion of the plurality of cells that correspond to portions of the map that the electronic device traversed and provides a second flag to a second portion of the plurality of cells that correspond to the one or more areas that were not traversed, the second flag identifies missed regions), wherein each cell included in the second set of cells is object free ([0248] In response to a determination that an obstacle prevents the electronic device from reaching the center position of the first missed region, the processor controls the electronic device to drive the electronic device to another missed region of the missed regions included in the list based on the determined order) and determining the second path based on the second set of cells ([0248] For example, the processor 140 generates a list of the missed regions in the area to determine an order in which the missed regions are visited by the electronic device. The processor 140 controls the electronic device to drive to a center position of a first missed region that is included in the list based on the determined order. In response to a determination that the electronic device is located at the center position of the first missed region, the processor 140 control the electronic device to drive in a predefined trajectory through the first missed region.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: decomposing the second subsection of the geographical area into a second set of cells, wherein each cell included in the second set of cells is object free; and determining the second path based on the second set of cells with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Kulkarni, for the benefit of providing a second set of geographic area used to identify specific operations and considerations for path planning of operations needed in addressing an entire geographic area.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) and Kulkarni (US-20210064043-A1), as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Young (US-7734387-B1).
In re claim 15. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) lacks The power machine of claim 14, wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: determining an order of the second set of cells based on a shortest path between each cell included in the second set of cells;
and determining the second path based on the order of the second set of cells.
Regarding the limitation; “…configured to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: determining an order of the second set of cells and determining the second path based on the order of the second set of cells”, Kulkarni (US-20210064043-A1) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for sensor fusion for localization and path planning. Kulkarni further discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: decomposing the second subsection of the geographical area into a second set of cells ([0247] The processor 140 provides a first flag to a first portion of the plurality of cells that correspond to portions of the map that the electronic device traversed and provides a second flag to a second portion of the plurality of cells that correspond to the one or more areas that were not traversed, the second flag identifies missed regions), and determining an order of the second set of cells and determining the second path based on the order of the second set of cells ([0248] For example, the processor 140 generates a list of the missed regions in the area to determine an order in which the missed regions are visited by the electronic device. The processor 140 controls the electronic device to drive to a center position of a first missed region that is included in the list based on the determined order. In response to a determination that the electronic device is located at the center position of the first missed region, the processor 140 control the electronic device to drive in a predefined trajectory through the first missed region.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include a configuration to determine the second work path for continuing the mowing event by: determining an order of the second set of cells and determining the second path based on the order of the second set of cells with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Kulkarni, for the benefit of providing a second set of geographic area used to identify specific operations and considerations for path planning of operations needed in addressing an entire geographic area.
Regarding the limitation; “…based on a shortest path between each cell…”, Young (US-7734387-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of a consideration for determining an order of the first set of cells based on a shortest path between each cell included in the first set of cells [FIG.11];
and determining the first path based on the order of the first set of cells, wherein controlling the power machine to perform the mowing event by traveling along the first work path includes controlling the power machine to travel along the first work path based on the order of the first set of cells, wherein the power machine travels in a first direction along the first work path by traveling successively to each cell included in the first set of cells based on the order of the first set of cells (order of cells from location (126) to end point (128) [FIG.11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flygare to include determining an order based on a shortest path between each cell with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Young, for the benefit of providing an efficient mode of travel wherein a polygonal path between two points establishes a shortest path of travel, saving time and energy in travel operations.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flygare (US-20220174868-A1), as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Cohen (US-20200159227-A1).
In re claim 17. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) lacks The power machine of claim 16, wherein the third subsection of the geographical area is smaller than the second subsection of the geographical area and the second subsection of the geographical area is smaller than the first subsection of the geographical area.
Regarding the limitation; Cohen (US-20200159227-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a first, second, and third geographical area wherein; the third is smaller than the second and the second is smaller than the first ([FIG.4] areas bounded by map 400, area 422, and individual inner square area such as 428 bounded within area 422)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flyglare to include wherein the third subsection of the geographical area is smaller than the second subsection of the geographical area and the second subsection of the geographical area is smaller than the first subsection of the geographical area with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Cohen, for the benefit of providing well defined geographical areas as defined by cells allowing a control system to dictate control operations based upon the geographical subsections and provide a working relationship of coverage associated with each area.
In re claim 18. Flygare (US-20220174868-A1) lacks The power machine of claim 16, wherein the first subsection of the geographical area includes the entirety of the geographical area.
Regarding the limitation; Cohen (US-20200159227-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a first subsection of the geographical area includes the entirety of the geographical area ([FIG.4] map 400)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Flyglare to include wherein the first subsection of the geographical area includes the entirety of the geographical area with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Cohen, for the benefit of providing a singular area associated with a totality of work area associated with the operation of a work vehicle, providing an overall bound for which control operations are to be contained.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663