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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendments of 22 April 2026 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 15-16, 18, and 20 are currently amended and claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 8 and 15-21 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.
In claim 8, the recited limitations “the actual speeds” in line 2 and “the expected speeds” in line 3 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this referring to the plurality of expected speeds and the plurality of the actual speeds or if these are different limitations?
In claim 15, the recited limitations “the actual speeds” in line 3 and “the expected speeds” in line 4 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this referring to the plurality of expected speeds and the plurality of the actual speeds or if these are different limitations?
In claim 16, the recited limitations “the actual speeds” in line 17 and “the expected speeds” in line 18 are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this referring to the plurality of expected speeds and the plurality of the actual speeds or if these are different limitations?
Claims 17-21 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 20190343035 A1) in view of Sarkar et al (US 20200166940 A1) in view of Hoch (US 20150168157 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Smith discloses a method for managing mobile machine operations, the method comprising: receiving inputs including a task command for a mobile machine (see at least [0017-0021]); determining an expected travel trajectory for the autonomous mobile machine to autonomously perform the task command (see at least [0024], “The path plan of one or more embodiments includes a predetermined path and/or control algorithm that an operator utilizes to control the movement of vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26 in the work area 24. During execution of the path plan 50, the vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26 may deviate from the desired path of the path plan 50, thereby forming an actual path 52, represented by the dashed line in FIG. 2, of the vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26.”); determining an actual travel trajectory of the mobile machine during performance of the task command (see at least [0024], “The path plan of one or more embodiments includes a predetermined path and/or control algorithm that an operator utilizes to control the movement of vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26 in the work area 24. During execution of the path plan 50, the vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26 may deviate from the desired path of the path plan 50, thereby forming an actual path 52, represented by the dashed line in FIG. 2, of the vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26.”); comparing, at intervals of time and/or distance, the actual travel trajectory to the expected travel trajectory (see at least [0024], “The path plan of one or more embodiments includes a predetermined path and/or control algorithm that an operator utilizes to control the movement of vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26 in the work area 24. During execution of the path plan 50, the vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26 may deviate from the desired path of the path plan 50, thereby forming an actual path 52, represented by the dashed line in FIG. 2, of the vehicle 12 and/or the work tool 26.”).
However, Smith do not specifically disclose the method is for managing autonomous vehicle operations, and wherein the mobile machine is an autonomous mobile machine; controlling the autonomous mobile machine to perform the task command; identifying, during performance of the task command by the autonomous mobile machine, an incident limiting factor responsible for a deviation between the actual travel trajectory and the expected travel trajectory.
Sarkar discloses the method is for managing autonomous vehicle operations, and wherein the mobile machine is an autonomous mobile machine (see at least [abstract]); controlling the autonomous mobile machine to perform the task command (see at least [0046-0047], [0100-0107], [0019], [0123-0124], [0128], and [Figs. 2B-2C]); identifying, during performance of the task command by the autonomous mobile machine, an incident limiting factor responsible for a deviation between the actual travel trajectory and the expected travel trajectory (see at least [0046-0047], [0100-0107], [0019], [0123-0124], [0128], and [Figs. 2B-2C], Sarkar teaches during performance of traveling from a start source to destination (task command) incident limiting factors(obstacles, i.e., 115) are identified and bypassed.).
Sarkar teaches an autonomous vehicle in which it response’s to obstacles (incident limiting factors by performing lateral shifts and Smith performs lateral shifts caused by conditions. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sarkar wherein the method is for managing autonomous vehicle operations, and wherein the mobile machine is an autonomous mobile machine; controlling the autonomous mobile machine to perform the task command; identifying, during performance of the task command by the autonomous mobile machine, an incident limiting factor responsible for a deviation between the actual travel trajectory and the expected travel trajectory. This would be done to reduce energy consumption, pollution, reduce frequency of crashes and congestion thereby providing increased road safety (see Sarkar para 0002).
Smith as modified by Sarkar do not specifically teach wherein the expected travel trajectory includes a plurality of expected speeds of the autonomous mobile machine; wherein the actual travel trajectory includes a plurality of actual speeds of the autonomous mobile machine.
Hoch teaches wherein the expected travel trajectory includes a plurality of expected speeds of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [abstract], [0023-0024], [0070], [0076-0077], [0092-0093], [0101-0106], and [0110]); wherein the actual travel trajectory includes a plurality of actual speeds of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [abstract], [0031-0032], [0076], [0090], and [0097-0100]).
With respect to claim 3, Smith teaches wherein the task command comprises a loading operation, a transport operation, and an unloading operation (see at least [0019], [0038], and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith as modified by Sarkar with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hoch wherein the task command comprises a loading operation, a transport operation, and an unloading operation. This would be done to improve guidance of a vehicle traveling on a section of a route (see Hoch para 0032)
With respect to claim 4, Smith discloses wherein the incident limiting factor comprises at least one of: an obstacle in a travel path of the autonomous mobile machine; a curve in the path of the autonomous mobile machine; a grade change in the path of the autonomous mobile machine; or another machine in the path of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [0021] and [0024]).
With respect to claim 5, Smith discloses includes an expected position of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [0024] and [Fig. 4], Smith discloses an expected position (desired path 50) of the vehicle.).
With respect to claim 6, Smith discloses includes an actual position of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [0024] and [Fig. 4], Smith discloses an actual position (actual path 52) of the vehicle.).
With respect to claim 7, Smith do not specifically disclose displaying the incident limiting factor.
Ekulnd teaches displaying the incident limiting factor to an administrator (see at least [0016] and [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Eklund of displaying the incident limiting factor to an administrator. This would be done to increase efficient use of energy of the working machines is to reduce costs and environmental impact (see Eklund para 0004).
With respect to claims 11, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 12, Smith discloses wherein the autonomous mobile machine comprises an onboard system including at least one of a perception device, a positioning system, or a drive system (see at least [0021], [0026], and [0032]), and wherein identifying the incident limiting factor is based on input from the onboard system (see at least [0021], [0024], [0026], and [0032]).
With respect to claim 13, Smith discloses wherein the positioning system comprises at least one of a global positioning system or an inertial navigation system for detecting a location, orientation, or speed of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [0021], [0024], [0026], and [0032]).
With respect to claim 14, Smith discloses wherein the incident limiting factor comprises at least one of: an obstacle in a travel path of the autonomous mobile machine; a curve in the path of the autonomous mobile machine; a grade change in the path of the autonomous mobile machine; or another machine in the path of the autonomous mobile machine (see at least [0021] and [0024]).
Claims 8-10, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 20190343035 A1) in view of Sarkar et al (US 20200166940 A1) in view of Kang et al (US 20180058868 A1) in view of Kano (US 20220381920 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Smith as modified Sarkar do not specifically teach wherein displaying the incident limiting factor comprises displaying a graph of the actual speeds of the autonomous mobile machine and the expected speeds of the autonomous mobile machine over time.
Kang teaches wherein displaying the incident limiting factor comprises displaying a graph of the actual speeds of the autonomous mobile machine and the expected speeds of the autonomous mobile machine over time (see at least [0029-0034] and [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith as modified by Sarkar, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kang wherein displaying the incident limiting factor comprises displaying a graph of the actual speeds of the autonomous mobile machine and the expected speeds of the autonomous mobile machine over time. This would be done for determining the most energy efficient of available routes/trajectories or for optimally controlling operation of the vehicle (see Kang para 0003).
Moreover, Smith as modified by Sarkar and Kang do not specifically teach displaying, on the graph, a window over an interval of time, the window including an annotation indicating the incident limiting factor that caused the deviation between the actual travel trajectory and the expected travel trajectory.
Kano teaches displaying, on the graph, a window over an interval of time, the window including an annotation indicating the incident limiting factor that caused the deviation between the actual travel trajectory and the expected travel trajectory (see at least [0106-0113], [0017], and [0119-0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith as modified by Sarkar and Kang, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kang of displaying, on the graph, a window over an interval of time, the window indicating the incident limiting factor that caused the deviation between the actual travel trajectory and the expected travel trajectory. This would be done to increase safety of a vehicle operating around or approaching an obstacle.
With respect to claim 9, Smith discloses adjusting the expected travel trajectory based on the incident limiting factor (see at least [0022-0026] and [0033-0036]).
With respect to claim 10, Smith as modified by Eklund and Kann do not specifically teach wherein adjusting the expected travel trajectory comprises changing a time at which the mobile machine approaches a location associated with the incident limiting factor.
Kang teaches wherein adjusting the expected travel trajectory comprises changing a time at which the mobile machine approaches a location associated with the incident limiting factor (see at least [0005], [0017-0022], [0031], and [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith as modified by Sarkar, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kang wherein adjusting the expected travel trajectory comprises changing a time at which the mobile machine approaches a location associated with the incident limiting factor. This would be done for determining the most energy efficient of available routes/trajectories or for optimally controlling operation of the vehicle (see Kang para 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b), set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights