DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 8/6/2026.
In the amendment Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 are pending. Claims 4 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 with cited references of Weber (U.S. 10,745,867) in view of Webb (U.S. 9,845,043) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following grammatical error has the claim recites “…determine a current movement path of the work…”, without reciting a machine thereafter which appears to have been accidently strikethrough, thus only reciting “work” without context which is unclear. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (U.S. 10,745,867, filed Jan. 10, 2017 & cited in the 1449 dated 12/19/2023) in view of Yesh (U.S. Pub 2020/0317118, filed Apr. 5, 2019).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Weber discloses A system for indicating a movement path of a work machine, the system comprising:
an optical device (see col. 7, lines 14-25, discloses optical projector); and
a controller including at least one memory and at least one processor communicably coupled with the at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is adapted to store a work plan for the work machine, wherein the at least one processor is communicably coupled with the optical device, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a current movement path of the work (see col. 10, lines 4-55, discloses control unit that adjusts projection based on screed position sensor for orientation/alignment);
control the optical device to project a visual indicia on a ground surface around the work machine, wherein the visual indicia represents the proposed movement path of the work machine, and wherein the visual indicia provides a navigation aid to one or more personnel present around the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, discloses projector 9 controlled by unit 32 to project projection 10 onto subgrade U – front/sides. Further supporting multiple patterns that include lines, guidelines, orientation fields and lighting frames has disclosed in col. 4, lines 60-67. Furthermore projection 10 represents current orientation/alignment of paver and visual extension of direction of travel thereby being indicative of partial path representation. Further, it describes projections that are visible to other operating personnel along the paving section and represent warning light barriers that limit a danger zone around the road paver). Weber discloses a road paver equipped with an optical projector to generate visible projection on the ground surface laterally and/or in front of the chassis as a navigation aid. Weber fails to teach retrieving a stored work plan, analyzing that plan to determine a proposed movement path that is determined in part on a planned path in the plan.
Yesh discloses:
retrieve the work plan from the at least one memory (see paragraphs 38 and 56, discloses that the robot controller receives a scheduled work command that includes a task, destination and/or travel path thereby retaining the command to act upon it);
analyze the work plan to determine a proposed movement path of the work machine, wherein the proposed movement path is based at least in part on a planned movement path of the work machine included in the work plan (see paragraph 55, discloses determining an optimal travel path from the task’s destination and the robot’s location in step 604, analyzes detector data against that path and revises it in paragraph 43 and 55, further projecting the resulting path in paragraphs 48-49. The projected path is thus based in part on the planned path derived from the work command and in part on sensor derived revisions). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Weber fails to teach or suggest determining a movement path of the work machine from steering/propel sensor inputs or laser lines that represent computed movement path trajectory. Yesh discloses a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of the current movement path of the work machine, wherein the sensor is communicably coupled with the at least one processor, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the current movement path of the work machine based on the signal generated by the sensor (see paragraph 37 and 54, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 2, Weber fails to teach or suggest determining a movement path of the work machine from steering/propel sensor inputs or laser lines that represent computed movement path trajectory. Yesh discloses wherein the sensor is associated with at least one of a steering system of the work machine, a propel system of the work machine, and a ground engaging member of the work machine (see paragraph 37 and 54, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, Weber discloses wherein the optical device includes a first optical source disposed proximal to a front end of the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 5, Weber discloses wherein the first optical source is configured to project the visual indicia on the ground surface that is present in front of the work machine and/or at least one side of the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 5, Weber discloses wherein the first optical source includes a laser source (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Weber discloses wherein the optical device includes a second optical source disposed proximal to a rear end of the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 8, Weber discloses wherein the second optical source is configured to project the visual indicia on the ground surface that is present behind the work machine and/or at least one side of the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 8, Weber discloses wherein the second optical source includes a laser source (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 1, Weber fails to teach or suggest determining a movement path of the work machine from steering/propel sensor inputs or laser lines that represent computed movement path trajectory. Yesh discloses wherein the visual indicia projected on the ground surface includes at least one of a first pattern and a second pattern, and wherein the first pattern indicates the current movement path of the work machine and the second pattern indicates the proposed movement path of the work machine (see paragraphs 48-49, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 11, Weber discloses wherein the first pattern includes a first color scheme and the second pattern includes a second color scheme, and wherein the first color scheme is different from the second color scheme (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 1, Weber discloses wherein the system is associated with a paving machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Independent claim 14, Weber discloses A method for indicating a movement path of a work machine, the method comprising:
determining, by a controller associated with the work machine, a current movement path of the work machine (see col. 10, lines 4-55, discloses control unit that adjusts projection based on screed position sensor for orientation/alignment);
controlling, by the controller, an optical device associated with the work machine to project a visual indicia on a ground surface around the work machine (see col. 4 & col. 7, lines 14-25, discloses optical projector that projects guidelines and patterns); and
indicating, based on projection of the visual indicia on the ground surface, the proposed movement path of the work machine to one or more personnel present around the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, discloses projector 9 controlled by unit 32 to project projection 10 onto subgrade U – front/sides. Further supporting multiple patterns that include lines, guidelines, orientation fields and lighting frames has disclosed in col. 4, lines 60-67. Furthermore projection 10 represents current orientation/alignment of paver and visual extension of direction of travel thereby being indicative of partial path representation. Further describes projections that are visible to other operating personnel along the paving section and represent warning light barriers that limit a danger zone around the road paver). Weber discloses a road paver equipped with an optical projector to generate visible projection on the ground surface laterally and/or in front of the chassis as a navigation aid. Weber fails to teach retrieving a stored work plan, analyzing that plan to determine a proposed movement path that is determined in part on a planned path in the plan.
Yesh discloses:
retrieving, by the controller, a work plan associated with the work machine (see paragraphs 38 and 56, discloses that the robot controller receives a scheduled work command that includes a task, destination and or travel path thereby retaining the command to act upon it);
analyzing, by the controller, the work plan to determine a proposed movement path of the work machine, wherein the proposed movement path is based at least in part on a planned movement path stored in the work plan (see paragraph 55, discloses determining an optimal travel path from the task’s destination and the robot’s location in step 604, analyzes detector data against that path and revises it in paragraph 43 and 55, further projecting the resulting path in paragraphs 48-49. The projected path is thus based in part on the planned path derived from the work command and in part on sensor derived revisions). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 14, Weber fails to teach or suggest determining a movement path of the work machine from steering/propel sensor inputs or laser lines that represent computed movement path trajectory. Yesh discloses generating, by a sensor associated with the work machine, a signal indicative of the current movement path of the work machine; and receiving, by the controller, the signal from the sensor to determine the current movement path of the work machine, wherein the sensor is communicably coupled with the controller (see paragraph 37 and 54, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 16, with dependency of claim 15, Weber fails to teach or suggest determining a movement path of the work machine from steering/propel sensor inputs or laser lines that represent computed movement path trajectory. Yesh discloses wherein the sensor is associated with at least one of a steering system of the work machine, a propel system of the work machine, and a ground engaging member of the work machine (see paragraph 37 and 54, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 14, Weber discloses projecting, by a first optical source of the optical device, the visual indicia on the ground surface that is present in front of the work machine and/or at least one side of the work machine, wherein the first optical source is disposed proximal to a front end of the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 19, with dependency of claim 14, Weber discloses projecting, by a second optical source of the optical device, the visual indicia on the ground surface that is present behind the work machine and/or at least one side of the work machine, wherein the second optical source is disposed proximal to a rear end of the work machine (see Figs. 17-18 & col. 11, lines 18-56, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 20, with dependency of claim 14, Weber fails to teach or suggest determining a movement path of the work machine from steering/propel sensor inputs or laser lines that represent computed movement path trajectory. Yesh discloses wherein the visual indicia projected on the ground surface includes at least one of a first pattern and a second pattern, and wherein the first pattern indicates the current movement path of the work machine and the second pattern indicates the proposed movement path of the work machine, the method further comprising projecting, by the optical device, at least one of the first pattern and the second pattern on the ground surface (see paragraphs 48-49, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Both Weber and Yesh are from the same field of endeavor of projecting visual path or guidance indica onto the ground to alert people. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the machine-mounted projector to project a plan derived path to inform nearby personnel of where the machine will go to avoid potential accidents. Yesh discloses that markers communicate the machine’s intended movement to humans and can be shown when a human is in proximity in paragraphs 38, 44 and 49.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed 8/6/2026 has been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
10/14/2026
