DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Objection - Abstract
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See 37 CFR 1.72 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 1-8, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2016/0076223).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Wei discloses a mobile machine, controller, and associated method for operation at a work site having a work surface (autonomous bulldozer control at a work site; Wei at Fig. 2, abstract), the mobile machine comprising:
A frame (frame 12; Wei at 0019).
A traction device mounted to the frame, the traction device being configured to move the mobile machine with respect to the work surface (track 15; Wei at 0019).
A surface-engaging implement mounted to the frame, the surface-engaging implement being raisable and lowerable with respect to the frame (aft ripper on dozer or blade 16 configured to push material, can be raised or lowered; Wei at Fig. 2, 0020).
A first sensor configured to provide a machine speed of the mobile machine (positioning sensing system or ground speed sensor provides dozer speed; Wei at 0030).
A second sensor configured to provide a machine location of the mobile machine (positioning system configured GPS; Wei at 0028).
A controller storing a three-dimensional site plan associated with the work site, the three-dimensional site plan including at least one keep-out zone (controller stores 3D work site data and associated work plan, as well as boundary information; Wei at abstract, 0043).
While Wei discloses the controller being configured to receive the machine speed and the machine location (Wei at 0025, 0028) to alter the performance of the machine (Wei at 0003), Wei is silent as to based on the machine speed and the machine location with respect to the at least one keep-out zone, to at least one of:
raise the surface-engaging implement and maintain the machine speed,
raise the surface-engaging implement and reduce the machine speed,
stop the mobile machine, or
provide an indication to an operator of the mobile machine.
Stratton, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches the controller monitoring the position and speed of the machine, and based on the machines speed and location with respect to certain keep-out areas (3D digital map data contains obstacles to be avoided, obstacles contain multiple e-fences, speed of machine and arrival of machine determine automated machine response; Stratton at 0015, 0017, 0029), provide an indication to an operator of the mobile machine or stop the machine (based on e-zone breeched, alert will be generated or machine stopped; Stratton at 0005, 0020).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the system and method of Wei with the autonomous control of Stratton. Doing so would provide successive layers of collision avoidance in response to the probability of collision.
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses a frame arm (arms 18 or support arms on ripper; Wei at Fig. 2, 0020) connecting the surface-engaging implement to the frame, the frame arm having a frame arm angle with respect to the frame (frame arms 18 or ripper arms at angle to frame; Wei at Fig. 2), wherein the surface-engaging implement comprises a work tool for penetrating the work surface (ripper or blade 16 configured to displace soil; Wei at Fig. 2, 0019), the work tool having a work tool angle with respect to the frame arm (either work tool on dozer configured to be manipulated at an angle with respect to frame; Wei at Fig. 2, 0020).
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses wherein the surface-engaging implement is rotatable about the frame arm (blade can rotate about frame arm, actuated by hydraulic means; Wei at 0020), and wherein the controller is configured, based on the machine speed and the machine location with respect to the at least one keep-out zone, to vary at least one of the work tool angle or the frame arm angle (blade cut angle adjusted with respect to boundary; Wei at abstract).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wei discloses wherein varying at least one of the work tool
angle or the frame arm angle comprises increasing at least one of the work tool angle or the
frame arm angle (blade cut angle adjusted for deeper or thinner cut; Wei at 0055, 0060).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination teaches wherein the at least one keep-out zone comprises a portion of the work surface that includes at least one obstruction (building, fire hydrant, etc.; Stratton at 0016).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the at least one obstruction is disposed in the work surface and/or under the work surface (fire hydrant; Stratton at 0016).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination teaches wherein the at least one obstruction comprises one or more buried utility lines (gas/electric lines; Stratton at 0016).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination teaches determine a distance difference between the machine location and a boundary of the at least one keep-out zone, and determine that the distance difference is less than a first distance value (machine crosses first e-fence; Stratton at 0020).
Regarding claim 13, Wei discloses wherein a frame arm (arms 18 or support arms on ripper; Wei at Fig. 2, 0020) connects the surface-engaging implement to a frame of the mobile machine, the frame arm having a frame arm angle with respect to the frame (frame arms 18 or ripper arms at angle to frame; Wei at Fig. 2), wherein the surface-engaging implement comprises a work tool for penetrating the work surface (ripper or blade 16 configured to displace soil; Wei at Fig. 2, 0019), the work tool having a work tool angle with respect to the frame arm, the
surface-engaging implement being rotatable about the frame arm (either work tool on dozer configured to be manipulated at an angle with respect to frame; Wei at Fig. 2, 0020), and
wherein the method further comprises varying at least one of the work tool angle or the frame arm angle based on the machine speed and the machine location with respect to the
at least one keep-out zone angle (blade cut angle adjusted with respect to boundary; Wei at abstract).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 9, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Subsequently, claims 10 and 11 are objected due to dependency on their respective claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 22 January 2026