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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/596,489 filed on December 17, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In particular the applicant argues:
Neither reference, nor any other reference of record, teaches (or even suggests) the claim limitation of controlling a work machine to not enter the intersection until after permission is obtained from the external system: Lee assigns priorities and may instruct vehicles to stop or change paths but does not require explicit permission before entry; Balasubramanian provides safety alerts, as provided in the passage above, not permission; and Tanaka schedules arrival times and priorities, but does not require an explicit permission grant before a work vehicle is permitted to enter an intersection. The remaining references do not cure any of the deficiencies of Lee, Balasubramanian, nor Tanaka. Thus, the combined art of record fails to teach or suggest these limitations.
In response to the above argument, the examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued (controlling a work machine to not enter the intersection until after permission is obtained from the external system). As noted in cited references, it is clear to the examiner that the cited references support the argued limitation. Balasubramanian discloses Server calculates a collision potential between objects. For example, server may estimate or predict a collision potential time period are both predicted to be in the intersection region. Based on the collision potential time period server 480 may generate or transmit an alert message, such as alert message… generate or transmit alert message 493 based on a determination that the overlap time is greater than or equal to a threshold (¶0130). Furthermore, Lee also discloses in at least $0015, “When a collision risk due to the plurality of vehicles is detected, the control information may include avoidance control information for causing a first vehicle having a relatively high priority to avoid other vehicles among the plurality of vehicles, and stop control information for causing a second vehicle having a relatively low priority to stop temporarily among the plurality of vehicles.”. Examiner construes sending control information or alert information to the vehicle entering the intersection to warn them about a potential collision is a type of controlling. Furthermore at least in Lee, ¶0079, discloses allowing the plurality of vehicles to pass through without stopping by appropriately controlling movement paths of the plurality of vehicles at the intersection within the parking lot, prevent a collision between the plurality of vehicles, and reduce congestion at the intersection. Thus, examiner construes this passage as providing permission based on the potential collision. Therefore, examiner believes cited references disclose the argued limitation.
Applicant argues: prior art systems like those cited in the present Office Action may allow vehicles to enter intersections based on predicted schedules or alerts, but do not provide the same level of positive, fail-safe control in the face of communication failures or unexpected changes in site conditions.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., provide the same level of positive, fail-safe control in the face of communication failures or unexpected changes in site conditions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues: amended independent claim 16 recites "wherein the two or more work machines are configured to not enter the at least one intersection without first receiving explicit permission from the management system." As noted above with respect to claim 1, the combined art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation of requiring an explicit permission grant before a work vehicle is permitted to enter an intersection.
In response to the above argument, see response B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the term “explicit permission…” is not disclosed in the specification. The specification discloses providing permission to the vehicles when entering the intersection but does not disclose what is meant by “explicit”.
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 16 and 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. More specifically, the phrase “explicit permission” is open to different interpretation, as it is not clear what specific form or level of authorization is intended.
Claims 17-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 seems to be missing a limitation since there is no ‘.’ At the end of the 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 (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.
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, 5, 7, 8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (2023/0394967) in view of Balasubramanian (US 20240267881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method comprising, by a controller of a mobile work machine (FIG. 1, “controller”):
receiving one or more intersection locations, wherein each of the one or more intersection locations indicates a location of an intersection of two or more roads in a worksite (¶0072, “… obtain the driving line information including an intersection entry line and an intersection exit line”);
determining that one of the one or more intersection locations is upcoming along a path of the work machine (¶0019, “obtaining driving line information including intersection entry lines and intersection exit lines”);
estimating an entry time at which the work machine will enter the intersection whose location is indicated by the one intersection location (¶0022, “generating of the priority information may include predicting a transit time required to transit an intersection entry line based on an intersection entry line”);
LEE does not explicitly disclose but, Balasubramanian teaches estimating an exit time at which the work machine will exit the intersection whose location is indicated by the one intersection location; sending the estimated entry time and the estimated exit time to an external system via a wireless network (¶0125, “server 480 is configured to calculate or predict, for vehicle 450, [T.sub.1, T.sub.2], where T.sub.v1 is a predicted entry of vehicle 450 at the intersection region (e.g., 578) and T.sub.12 is a predicted exit time of vehicle 450 at the intersection region. As another example, server 480 is configured to calculate or predict, for UE 115, [T.sub.b1, T.sub.b2], where T.sub.b1 is a predicted entry of UE 115 at the intersection region (e.g., 578) and T.sub.b2 is a predicted exit time of UE 115 at the intersection region.. Server 480 may generate or transmit alert message 493 based on the predicted time overlap”); and
controlling the work machine to not enter the intersection, whose location is indicated by the one intersection location, until after permission is obtained from the external system (¶0123, “generating of the priority information may include predicting a transit time required to transit an intersection entry line based on an intersection entry line”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with the estimation of entry and exit time of the vehicle taught in Balasubramanian with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted efficiently moving vehicles without a collision of vehicles at an intersection within a parking lot.
Regarding claim 3, LEE discloses wherein controlling the work machine comprises stopping the work machine (¶01232).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the one or more intersection locations are a plurality of intersection locations (¶0072).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the external system is a management system, and wherein obtaining permission from the external system comprises receiving permission from the management system (¶0101-0103).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the method further comprises, by at least one processor of the management system: receiving estimated entry times and estimated exit times from a plurality of work machines for at least one intersection; determining whether a conflict exists between two or more of the plurality of work machines based on the received estimated entry times and estimated exit times, wherein a conflict exists when the two or more work machines are estimated to be in the at least one intersection at a same time; when no conflict exists, sending permission to each of the two or more work machines; and when the conflict exists, determining priorities for the two or more work machines, and sending permission to each of the two or more work machines according to the determined priorities (¶0122-0123, FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses wherein sending permission to each of the two or more work machines according to the determined priorities comprises, until all of the two or more work machines have been sent permissions, performing an iteration of: sending permission to one of the two or more work machines having a highest priority and which has not yet been sent permission; and when another of the two or more work machines remains to receive permission, waiting until the one work machine has cleared the at least one intersection before sending another permission (¶0123).
Regarding claim 12, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the method further comprises, by at least one processor of the management system: receiving estimated entry times and estimated exit times from a plurality of work machines for a plurality of intersections; estimating travel times for remaining portions of the paths of the plurality of work machines based on the received estimated entry times and estimated exit times; and optimizing traffic within the worksite based on the estimated travel times (¶0123).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with the estimation of entry and exit time of the vehicle taught in Balasubramanian with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted efficiently moving vehicles without a collision of vehicles at an intersection within a parking lot.
Regarding claim 13, LEE discloses wherein optimizing traffic comprises adjusting one or more of the paths of the plurality of work machines (¶0125).
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (2023/0394967) in view of Balasubramanian (US 20240267881 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of TANKA (JP2017117328A).
Regarding claim 2, LEE does not explicitly disclose but, TANAKA teaches wherein controlling the work machine comprises reducing a speed of the work machine (¶0002).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with reduction in speed taught in TANKA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an operation management technique of a vehicle, which takes improvement of production efficiency in a mine into consideration
Regarding claim 4, TANAKA further teaches wherein the worksite is a mining site (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with reduction in speed taught in TANKA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an operation management technique of a vehicle, which takes improvement of production efficiency in a mine into consideration
Regarding claim 6, TANAKA teaches wherein the external system is another work machine, and wherein obtaining permission from the external system comprises negotiating permission with the other work machine (¶0075).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with reduction in speed taught in TANKA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an operation management technique of a vehicle, which takes improvement of production efficiency in a mine into consideration
Regarding claim 9, TANAKA teaches wherein determining priorities for the two or more work machines comprises: calculating a value of a task to which each of the two or more work machines is assigned, based on one or more parameters; and prioritizing the two or more work machines, relative to each other, based on the calculated values (¶0035-0036).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with reduction in speed taught in TANKA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an operation management technique of a vehicle, which takes improvement of production efficiency in a mine into consideration.
Regarding claim 10, TANAKA teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise, for each of the two or more work machines, at least one of a cost of a destination of the path of the work machine, an estimated arrival time of the work machine at the destination of the path, an indication of whether or not the work machine is hauling a load, an estimated time duration that the work machine will have to wait to enter the at least one intersection, or a fuel or energy level of the work machine (¶0071-¶0074).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with reduction in speed taught in TANKA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an operation management technique of a vehicle, which takes improvement of production efficiency in a mine into consideration
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (2023/0394967) in view of Balasubramanian (US 20240267881 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wood (US 20180222488 A1).
Regarding claim 14, LEE does not explicitly disclose but Wood teaches wherein optimizing traffic comprises adjusting one or more tasks of the plurality of work machines (¶0028).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with adjusting tasks taught in Wood with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an operation management technique of a vehicle, which takes improvement of production efficiency in a mine into consideration
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (2023/0394967) in view of Balasubramanian (US 20240267881 A1) and further in view of Hamada (US 9672743 B2).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose explicit permission to enter the at least one intersection;
wherein the two or more work machines are configured to not enter the at least one intersection without first receiving explicit permission from the management system (FIG. 6, abstract, The onboard control apparatus sets a travel permission request starting distance that is longer than a stoppable distance on the basis of the current speed of the vehicle and repeatedly transmits a travel permission request and current position information to the traffic control apparatus until the next travel permission is obtained when the remaining length of the permitted travel section has become shorter than the travel permission request starting distance in the advancing direction of the vehicle.”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous driving system disclosed in LEE with explicit permission taught in Hamada with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing an improvement of efficiency in traffic management.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 16.
Regarding claims 15, 17-20, claims 15, 17-20 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-14.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osagawa (9842501) discloses A mine management system includes generating unmanned vehicle traveling data including a target traveling route of an unmanned vehicle, acquiring unmanned vehicle current situation data at first time point, acquiring manned vehicle current situation data at the first time point, estimating a range in which the unmanned vehicle may be present at second time point based on the unmanned vehicle traveling data and the unmanned vehicle current situation data, estimating a position where a manned vehicle may be present at the second time point based on the manned vehicle current situation data, and deriving a risk level indicating a possibility of collision between the manned vehicle and the unmanned vehicle corresponding to the second time point at the first time point per position where the manned vehicle may be present based on estimation results of estimating the unmanned vehicle existence range and the manned vehicle existence position (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667