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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 15th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 USC 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed December 12th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks pages 9-20, the applicant argues that previously presented prior arts Yamada in view of Krone fail to teach the amended limitation “accessing a set of constraints the set of constraints being for ensuring that headings of the independently tracked components being consistent with the machine construction and with regard to an external reference system”, and the previously presented features “providing for each of the independently tracked components an IMU component reference frame representing a measured pose of the said component based on the IMU data”, and “providing the heading of the implement based on the consistent component reference frames for a controller of the work vehicle”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to the amended limitation, Yamada teaches “relative positional relations between the posture information measuring devices” located on different components of the machine, i.e. “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13, the arm 14 and the bucket link 16”, where, for example, “rotational posture” of a bucket can be known “on the basis of not only the measurement result from the posture information measuring device 3d provided on the bucket link 16 but also the measurement result from the posture information measuring device 3c provided on the arm 14 and dimensional information of the four-joint link mechanism”, such that the known relative positional relations and dimensional information of the link mechanism constitute known constraints consistent with the machine construction, and “inclination angles and inclination directions relative to a horizontal plane”, can be determined, where “gravitational acceleration is always vertical to a horizontal plane”, such that the plane is fixed external reference system based on gravity (Yamada, Para. 0032). Yamada further teaches “the three-dimensional angle of the IMU (posture information measuring device 3) itself relative to the gravitational direction is determined” (Yamada, Para. 0051). Furthermore, Yamada in view of Krone teaches computer-executable instructions for performing: accessing a set of constraints, where the “program code” receives a plurality of “signals indicative of orientation measurements and motion measurements for the components of the machine” including “parameters”, or constraints, “characterizing the various links, joints, tools, hydraulics, and power systems of the machine”, (Krone, Para. 0010, 0022, 0025-0029), as cited previously.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that Yamada does not contain any reference to “six degree of freedom IMU data” (see pages 14-17 of the applicant’s remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamada teaches “IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units) are used as the posture information measuring devices”, wherein the “posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d output measured values of accelerations and angular velocities in an IMU coordinate system” (Yamada, Para. 0032). It is known in the art that an IMU coordinate system contains three axes, i.e. pitch, roll, and yaw (See Krone, Para. 0063 for supplemental details), wherein by measuring both acceleration and angular velocity on each of these axes, six degrees of freedom are measured. Furthermore the applicant argues that Yamada measures inclination information with respect to a gravity direction, and thus does not teach six degree of freedom IMU data. However, Yamada teaches collecting the information on the IMU coordinate system, and then determining “the three-dimensional angle of the IMU (posture information measuring device 3) itself relative to the gravitational direction” (Yamada, Para. 0051), such that IMU data from a plurality of IMU data collected from “posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d” is determined relative to a fixed external reference system, i.e. the gravitational direction. Despite components of the machine cited in Yamada being taught to be “rotated independently in the vertical direction”, see applicant’s remarks page 15, the “IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units)” taught by Yamada still collect “accelerations and angular velocities in an IMU coordinate system” (Yamada, Para. 0032), such that Yamada teaches the pending limitation “each of the independently tracked components is correspondingly associated to a respective inertial measurement unit providing six degree of freedom IMU data independently of the further inertial measurement units”, where the inertial measurement unit is providing six degree of freedom data. The pending limitations do not teach the components having six degree of freedom movement.
The applicant argues that “IMU data always refers to an external reference system and not to a reference system congruent with the component” (see page 20 of applicant’s remarks). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the pending claims do not teach this limitation, and rather teach “a respective inertial measurement unit providing six degree of freedom IMU data independently of the further inertial measurement units” and providing “a reference frame adjustment algorithm” which appears to adjust the IMU data and constraints to a “consistent component reference frame”, i.e. the external reference system.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 11 appears to be missing a comma separating the clauses, such that “accessing a set of constraints the set of constraints being for ensuring…”, should instead read “accessing a set of constraints, the set of constraints being for ensuring…”. Appropriate correction is 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, et al., hereinafter Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0074168) in view of Krone, et al., hereinafter Krone (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0215483).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada teaches: A computer program product (Yamada, Para. 0110 – “functions and the like may be realized by software by a process in which a processor interprets and executes programs”) for deriving a heading of an implement of a work vehicle comprising a set of independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0026-0027 and 0032 – acquiring “posture information” for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15” of a “work machine”, where “posture information indicates inclination angles and inclination directions of the members”, or heading; where the structures rotate “independently”, and are tracked independently using a plurality of “posture information measuring devices” located on each structure), wherein:
the set of independently tracked components comprises the implement, a chassis, and an arm connecting the implement to the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0026-0028 and 0032 – a “bucket”, or work implement, connected to an “an upper swing structure 11 and a lower track structure 12 constituting a machine main body”, or chassis, by “an arm” and “a boom”),
each of the independently tracked components is correspondingly associated to a respective inertial measurement unit providing six degree of freedom IMU data independently of the further inertial measurement units (Yamada, Para. 0032 and 0051 – “IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units) are used as the posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d”, where the “information measuring devices” acquire “posture information” for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15”; the “IMUs” provide “values of accelerations and angular velocities” in the three-dimensions of the IMU coordinate system, such that six degrees of freedom are measured),
the computer program product comprises program code which is stored on a machine-readable medium, comprising a program code, and has computer-executable instructions (Yamada, Para. 0110 – “functions and the like may be realized by software by a process in which a processor interprets and executes programs”) for performing:
“relative positional relations between the posture information measuring devices” located on different components of the machine, where, for example, “rotational posture” of a bucket can be known “on the basis of not only the measurement result from the posture information measuring device 3d provided on the bucket link 16 but also the measurement result from the posture information measuring device 3c provided on the arm 14 and dimensional information of the four-joint link mechanism” and “inclination angles and inclination directions relative to a horizontal plane”, can be determined, where “gravitational acceleration is always vertical to a horizontal plane”, such that the plane is fixed external reference system based on gravity), the set of constraints comprising:
internal constraint associated with two of the independently tracked components and representing a fixed spatial relationship between the said components in at least one degree of freedom (Yamada, Para. 0029 and 0032 – a “link mechanism” provided between the “arm” and the “bucket”, where the “rotational posture can be known on the basis of not only the measurement result from the posture information measuring device 3d provided on the bucket link 16 but also the measurement result from the posture information measuring device 3c provided on the arm 14 and dimensional information of the four-joint link mechanism”; where the link mechanism connects the arm and bucket, such that they have a fixed spatial relationship due to the joint created by the “link mechanism”, acting as an internal constraint), and
external constraints associated with one of the independently tracked components and representing a fixed spatial relationship between the said component and the external reference frame in at least one degree of freedom (Yamada, Para. 0038-0040 and 0051 – “GNSS antennas”, for calculating “the position in a global coordinate system”, or external reference frame, “of the hydraulic excavator”, which can determine “the orientation of the upper swing structure”, or component, where further “acquisition of gravitational acceleration” is performed in determining “posture information”; where posture is constrained by the position in the global coordinate system and the gravitational pull),
providing for each of the independently tracked components an IMU component reference frame representing a measured pose of the said component based on the IMU data (Yamada, Para. 0032 and 0051 – “IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units) are used as the posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d”, where the “information measuring devices” acquire “posture information”, or measured pose, for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15”; the “IMUs” provide “values of accelerations and angular velocities” in the dimensions of the IMU coordinate system),
providing a heading of the chassis as an external constraint by accessing externally referenced navigation data (Yamada, Para. 0038-0040 – “GNSS antennas”, for calculating “the position in a global coordinate system”, or external reference frame, “of the hydraulic excavator”, which can determine “the orientation of the upper swing structure”, or component),
providing a direction of gravity as an external constraint on the basis of the IMU data and/or the navigation data (Yamada, Para. 0051 – “acquisition of gravitational acceleration” for determining “the three-dimensional angle of the IMU (posture information measuring device 3) itself relative to the gravitational direction”),
providing by a reference frame adjustment algorithm a consistent component reference frame for each of the independently tracked components based on the IMU component reference frames and the set of constraints (Yamada, Para. 0051 – “a complementary filter or a Kalman filter or the like utilizing information such as an angle by an integrating process of angular velocity or an angle with the gravitational direction by acquisition of gravitational acceleration or the like may be used, whereby the three-dimensional angle of the IMU (posture information measuring device 3) itself relative to the gravitational direction is determined”),
providing the heading of the implement based on the consistent component reference frames for a controller of the work vehicle (Yamada, Para. 0038-0040 – “a technique of RTK-GNS (Real Time Kinematic-GNSS) of receiving correction information from a reference station including a GNSS antenna set in the site and acquiring the self-position more accurately”, such that the reference station provides a reference frame when determining ““the orientation of the upper swing structure” of the work machine).
While Yamada teaches a set of constraints (see the internal and external constraints above), Yamada does not explicitly teach computer-executable instructions for performing: accessing a set of constraints.
However, Krone teaches computer-executable instructions (Krone, Para. 0010 – “a non-transitory computer readable medium” including “computer-usable program code”) for performing: accessing a set of constraints (Krone, Para. 0010, 0022, 0025-0029 – where the “program code” receives a plurality of “signals indicative of orientation measurements and motion measurements for the components of the machine” including “parameters”, or constraints, “characterizing the various links, joints, tools, hydraulics, and power systems of the machine”, where further the code takes into account a “gravitational plane, motion, and/or other parameters of the machine 101 and its components” when estimating the state of the machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product of Yamada to include computer-executable instructions for performing accessing a set of constraints, as taught by Krone, in order to take into account the various connections of components to improve the accuracy of a pose estimation of the work vehicle components.
In regards to Claim 2, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein the reference frame adjustment algorithm (Yamada, Para. 0051 – “a complementary filter or a Kalman filter or the like”, See Claim 1) comprises a variation algorithm, wherein: the variation algorithm is configured to provide a set of varied component reference frames for each of the independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0032 – where the “posture information measuring devices” output measured values “in an IMU coordinate system set for each of the posture information measuring devices” as posture information) by performing a rotation transformation on at least one of the respective IMU component reference frame (Yamada, Para. 0032, 0040-0041, and 0051 – “Since gravitational acceleration is always vertical to a horizontal plane, by use of these measured values and the information concerning the attached state of the posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d (namely, relative positional relations between the posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d and the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13, the arm 14 and the bucket link 16), the inclination angles and inclination directions relative to a horizontal plane of the upper swing structure 11 and each front member (the boom 13, the arm 14, and the bucket 15) of the work implement 10 can be acquired, and self-posture can be known”; where “the automatic operation controller 52 calculates front-rear inclination and left-right inclination” of the implements by using “a complementary filter or a Kalman filter or the like”, where “the three-dimensional angle of the IMU (posture information measuring device 3) itself relative to the gravitational direction is determined” by utilizing the gravitational acceleration reference frame).
Yamada does not teach wherein the reference frame adjustment algorithm comprises a consistency determination algorithm, an evaluation algorithm, and an optimization algorithm, wherein: the consistency determination algorithm is configured to provide a local consistency value between a first and a second reference frame based on the associated constraints, wherein: the first reference frame is a varied component reference frame, and the second reference frame is the external reference frame, or the first reference frame is a varied component reference frame and the second reference frame is a varied component reference frame different from the first reference frame, the evaluation algorithm is configured to provide an overall consistency value based on a set of local consistency values spanning each combination from the set of varied component reference frames and the external reference frame, the optimization algorithm is configured to provide the consistent component reference frames on the basis of the overall consistency value, in particular to derive the consistent component reference frames using sets of varied component reference frames in an iterative regression process, wherein the overall consistency value increases in subsequent iteration steps.
However, Krone teaches wherein the reference frame adjustment algorithm (Krone, Para. 0030 – “a filtering algorithm”, such as “a Kalman filter” for implementing “linear quadratic estimation (LQE) processes including sensor fusion”) comprises a consistency determination algorithm, an evaluation algorithm, and an optimization algorithm, wherein:
the consistency determination algorithm is configured to provide a local consistency value between a first and a second reference frame based on the associated constraints (Krone, Para. 0022-0026 – “coordinate indicators” which define a component reference frame orientation, to a “first joint” or a “global reference frame”, where vectors representing distance and direction represent a local consistency value between a component reference frame and a global reference frame), wherein: the first reference frame is a varied component reference frame, and the second reference frame is the external reference frame (Krone, Para. 0022-0024– “coordinate indicators 172, 174, 176 may be used to demonstrate an orientation of the respective joints 122, 124, 126 relative to the first joint 120 and with respect to” a “global reference frame 170”, or external reference frame), or the first reference frame is a varied component reference frame and the second reference frame is a varied component reference frame different from the first reference frame (Krone, Para. 0022-0024 – “coordinate indicators” which “may be used to demonstrate an orientation of the respective joints” to a “first joint”, where further “the state estimators are provided coordinates (e.g., x,y,z coordinates in three dimensional space) of the IMU modules 110, 112, 114, 116 in the frame of the respective components 104, 150, 152, 154 in order to determine the position of the components 104, 150, 152, 154 with respect to each other”, or a position of a first component in a second component’s reference frame, and vice versa),
the evaluation algorithm is configured to provide an overall consistency value based on a set of local consistency values spanning each combination from the set of varied component reference frames and the external reference frame (Krone, Para. 0052-0055 – utilizing a “Kalman filter” to determine a “combined or fused information” using the information provided by the “IMU modules”, associated with “each of the different portions and/or components”, and other sensors, in order to “more accurately predict the output angle, velocity, and/or acceleration of each of the separate components of the machine”, where the fused information provides posture information in relation to a machine reference frame or a global reference frame; where “a “gain” or weighting”, or overall consistency, is determined)
the optimization algorithm is configured to provide the consistent component reference frames on the basis of the overall consistency value, in particular to derive the consistent component reference frames using sets of varied component reference frames in an iterative regression process (Krone, Para. 0054 – a “Kalman filter” which “estimates a machine state by using a form of feedback control in a recursive and iterative process, with each iteration including a time update or “predict” phase, and a measurement or “correct phase”), wherein the overall consistency value increases in subsequent iteration steps (Krone, Para. 0054 – “During each iteration performed by the Kalman filter 440, a “gain” or weighting is determined by comparing an error in the estimate for a measured value and an error in the actual measurement of the value”, where the gain, or consistency value, “is equal to a ratio between the error in the estimate and the sum of the error in the estimate and the error in the actual measurement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include wherein the reference frame adjustment algorithm comprises a consistency determination algorithm, an evaluation algorithm, and an optimization algorithm, wherein: the consistency determination algorithm is configured to provide a local consistency value between a first and a second reference frame based on the associated constraints, wherein: the first reference frame is a varied component reference frame, and the second reference frame is the external reference frame, or the first reference frame is a varied component reference frame and the second reference frame is a varied component reference frame different from the first reference frame, the evaluation algorithm is configured to provide an overall consistency value based on a set of local consistency values spanning each combination from the set of varied component reference frames and the external reference frame, the optimization algorithm is configured to provide the consistent component reference frames on the basis of the overall consistency value, in particular to derive the consistent component reference frames using sets of varied component reference frames in an iterative regression process, wherein the overall consistency value increases in subsequent iteration steps, as taught by Krone, in order to utilize a recursive and iterative process to improve the accuracy of the algorithm for determining a pose/state of the work vehicle.
In regards to Claim 3, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 2, and Yamada in view of Krone further teaches comprising a relative motion detection algorithm, wherein the relative motion detection algorithm is configured to detect a relative motion between two of the independently tracked components based on a history of the respective consistent component reference frames and actual IMU data (Krone, Para. 0054-0055 – where the “Kalman filter” performs “a form of feedback control in a recursive and iterative process, with each iteration including a time update or “predict” phase, and a measurement or “correct phase””, such that the feedback control utilizes a history of the “received measured values of the pose and/or state of the machine as detected by the IMUs”; where when performing fusion of the measurements, the movement of the components relative to the machine and to each other are taken into account), wherein the actual IMU data of the two independently tracked components is indicative of a relative movement (Krone, Para. 0022-0024 – “coordinate indicators”, “determined using IMU modules”, which “may be used to demonstrate an orientation of the respective joints” to a “first joint” or a “global reference frame”; where the coordinates indicate a location of a joint in an IMU module reference frame), wherein the relative motion detection algorithm provides an assessment on a probability of the detected relative motion on the basis of the internal constraints associated with the respective independently tracked components (Krone, Para. 0054 – where when a “current estimate for the value” is calculated, a “new error in the estimate of the value is then determined and fed back for use in determining the gain to be applied in the next iteration”, where the “gain” is a “equal to a ratio between the error in the estimate and the sum of the error in the estimate and the error in the actual measurement”) and/or the provides an assessment on a component health on the basis of the detected relative motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include comprising a relative motion detection algorithm, wherein the relative motion detection algorithm is configured to detect a relative motion between two of the independently tracked components based on a history of the respective consistent component reference frames and actual IMU data, wherein the actual IMU data of the two independently tracked components is indicative of a relative movement, wherein the relative motion detection algorithm provides an assessment on a probability of the detected relative motion on the basis of the internal constraints associated with the respective independently tracked components, as taught by Krone, in order to improve the accuracy when determining actual positions of different points on the separate machine components in real time.
In regards to Claim 4, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 2, and Yamada in view of Krone further teaches wherein the consistency determination algorithm comprises an orientation matching algorithm (Krone, Para. 0020-0026 and 0056 – where the system may define locations of components of the machine “with respect to an original orientation or global reference frame 170 of the body 104 (e.g., the origin 170)”, such that the frame of reference for each component is defined, or matched, to an original orientation/global reference frame) and/or a linear velocity matching algorithm,
the orientation matching algorithm comprising: deriving a first orientation vector corresponding to the respective fixed spatial relationship in the first reference frame, deriving a second orientation vector corresponding to the respective fixed spatial relationship in the second reference frame (Krone, Fig. 1 and Para. 0020-0026 – utilizing “coordinate indicators” indicative of reference frame associated with a joint of a component; where for example, a vector R2 as shown in Fig. 1 corresponds to an offset between a second joint 122 and a third joint 124 in the reference frame of the second joint 122; a global reference frame 170, as shown on Fig. 1, where the vector R1 represents the distance and direction, or orientation, between the global frame of reference and the second joint 122), deriving an orientation deviation between the first and the second orientation vectors, providing the local consistency value between the first and second reference frames based on the orientation deviation (Krone, Fig. 1 and Para. 0020-0026 – determining an orientation, or consistency value, of the third joint 124 “with respect to an original orientation or global reference frame 170 of the body 104 (e.g., the origin 170)” using the determined orientations of the second and third joint reference frames represented by coordinate indicators on Fig. 1),
and the linear velocity matching algorithm comprising: deriving a first velocity vector corresponding to the respective fixed spatial relationship in the first reference frame, deriving a second velocity vector corresponding to the respective fixed spatial relationship in the second reference frame, deriving a linear velocity deviation between the first and the second linear velocity vectors, providing the local consistency value between the first and second reference frames based on the linear velocity deviation wherein the orientation and the linear velocity matching is based on a Lie group representation of the first and second reference frames.
PNG
media_image1.png
525
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Krone, Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include wherein the consistency determination algorithm comprises an orientation matching algorithm the orientation matching algorithm comprising deriving a first orientation vector corresponding to the respective fixed spatial relationship in the first reference frame, deriving a second orientation vector corresponding to the respective fixed spatial relationship in the second reference frame, deriving an orientation deviation between the first and the second orientation vectors, providing the local consistency value between the first and second reference frames based on the orientation deviation, as taught by Krone, in order to determine the relationship between the reference frames to accurately determine the posture of the components in the different reference frames.
In regards to Claim 5, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 4, and Yamada further teaches applying a filter, in particular a complementary-filter on the time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations (Yamada, Para. 0051 – applying “a complementary filter or a Kalman filter utilizing information such as an angle by an integrating process of angular velocity or an angle with the gravitational direction by acquisition of gravitational acceleration”), but Yamada does not teach comprising a relative acceleration bias determination algorithm, wherein the relative acceleration bias determination algorithm comprising: providing a time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations between the first and the second reference frames, applying a filter on the time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations to obtain a filtered relative acceleration bias between the first reference frame and the second reference frame, the computer program product further comprising: performing the relative acceleration bias derivation for each of the combinations of the first and second reference frames, deriving acceleration biases for each inertial measurement unit based on a set of obtained filtered relative acceleration biases.
However, Krone teaches comprising a relative acceleration bias determination algorithm (Krone, Para. 0055 – a “Kalman filter” which may “be configured to estimate bias of gyroscope information provided by the IMUs”), wherein the relative acceleration bias determination algorithm comprising:
providing a time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations between the first and the second reference frames (Krone, Para. 0009, 0022, 0055-0056, and 0067 – “measurements taken in a time series”, where the measurements are received from “IMU modules” and are “indicative of orientation measurements and motion measurements for the components of the machine on which the IMU modules are mounted” solved for “a frame rotation and position at each component”, or deviation, relative “a machine reference frame 170 and/or a global reference frame”),
applying a filter on the time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations to obtain a filtered relative acceleration bias between the first reference frame and the second reference frame (Krone, Para. 0060 – the “Kalman filter 440 may also be configured to perform gyroscope bias estimation in a gyroscope bias estimation module 444 in order to compensate for any drift over time in the readings provided by gyroscopes associated with the IMUs”, where the drift is caused by “integrating linear accelerations and angular rates of motion from the IMUs), the computer program product further comprising:
performing the relative acceleration bias derivation for each of the combinations of the first and second reference frames (Krone, Para. 0055 – performing gyroscope bias estimation for each of the IMUs associated with the components of the machine, having their own coordinate reference frames, “relative to the machine reference frame 170 and a global reference frame”),
deriving acceleration biases for each inertial measurement unit based on a set of obtained filtered relative acceleration biases (Krone, Para. 0055 – a “Kalman filter” which may “be configured to estimate bias of gyroscope information provided by the IMUs” to reduce “drift over time” caused by “twice integrating linear accelerations and angular rates of motion from the IMUs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include comprising a relative acceleration bias determination algorithm, wherein the relative acceleration bias determination algorithm comprising: providing a time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations between the first and the second reference frames, applying a filter on the time series of the orientation and/or linear velocity deviations to obtain a filtered relative acceleration bias between the first reference frame and the second reference frame, the computer program product further comprising: performing the relative acceleration bias derivation for each of the combinations of the first and second reference frames, deriving acceleration biases for each inertial measurement unit based on a set of obtained filtered relative acceleration biases., as taught by Krone, in order to improve the accuracy of pose/posture estimation for the components of the vehicle caused by drift over time (Krone, Para. 0055).
In regards to Claim 7, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 2, and Yamada in view of Krone further teaches wherein the computer program product (Yamada, Para. 0110 – “functions and the like may be realized by software by a process in which a processor interprets and executes programs”) further comprises a step of providing an attitude of each of the independently tracked components based on the consistent component reference frames for a controller of the work vehicle, wherein the computer program product comprises the step of providing a six degree pose of each of the independently tracked components in: the external reference frame, and/or a chassis centered reference frame (Krone, Para. 0022, 0055, 0062, and 0081 – “the IMUs 210, 216, 222, 228 may include a 6-degree of freedom (6 DOF) IMU” and determining “estimates of output orientation data and output motion data for the components” with respect to “a machine reference frame 170 and/or a global reference frame”), and/or a reference frame centered on a front part of an articulated work vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include a step of providing an attitude of each of the independently tracked components based on the consistent component reference frames for a controller of the work vehicle, wherein the computer program product comprises the step of providing a six degree pose of each of the independently tracked components in: the external reference frame, and/or a chassis centered reference frame, as taught by Krone, in order to convert all measurements to one reference frame for ease of calculation and understanding of the component relations.
In regards to Claim 8, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 2, and Yamada in view of Krone further teaches wherein the internal constraints comprises a set of motionless state constraints associated with two of the independently tracked components performing no relative motion with respect to each other (Krone, Para. 0055 – “output joint angles”, or motionless state constraints, “for each of the individual components 104, 150, 152, 154 of the machine 101 may be fused with each other” to account for motion of two or more components when the “two or more components 104, 150, 152, 154 remain in a fixed orientation relative to each other”), wherein the motionless state constraints are provided by a relative motion detection algorithm (Krone, Para. 0056 – “output joint angles that have been fused at the machine level by the Kalman filter 440 may be received by a kinematic library module 460”, constituting a relative motion detection algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include wherein the internal constraints comprises a set of motionless state constraints associated with two of the independently tracked components performing no relative motion with respect to each other, wherein the motionless state constraints are provided by a relative motion detection algorithm, as taught by Krone, in order to utilize constants between tracked components when determining pose/posture to increase accuracy of the estimations.
Regarding Claim 10, Yamada teaches: An implement tracking unit for deriving a heading of an implement of a work vehicle comprising independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0026-0027 and 0032 – “posture information measuring devices” which acquire “posture information” for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15” of a “work machine”, where “posture information indicates inclination angles and inclination directions of the members”, or heading; where the structures rotate “independently”, and are tracked independently using a plurality of “posture information measuring devices” located on each structure), wherein:
independently tracked components comprise the implement, a chassis, and an arm connecting the implement to the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0026-0028 and 0032 – a “bucket”, or work implement, connected to an “an upper swing structure 11 and a lower track structure 12 constituting a machine main body”, or chassis, by “an arm” and “a boom”), the implement tracking unit comprises:
a set of inertial measurement units providing six degree of freedom IMU data independently of the further inertial measurement units, wherein each of the inertial measurement units is correspondingly associated with one of the independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0032 and 0051 – “IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units) are used as the posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d”, where the “information measuring devices” acquire “posture information” for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15”; the “IMUs” provide “values of accelerations and angular velocities” in the three-dimensions of the IMU coordinate system, such that six degrees of freedom are measured),
a navigation sensor configured to provide externally referenced navigation data comprising data regarding a heading of the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0038-0040 – “GNSS antennas”, for calculating “the position in a global coordinate system”, or external reference frame, “of the hydraulic excavator”, which can determine “the orientation of the upper swing structure”, or component),
a computing unit configured to execute the computer program product according to claim 1 (See Claim 1), and
the computer program product (Yamada, Para. 0110 – “functions and the like may be realized by software by a process in which a processor interprets and executes programs”).
In regards to Claim 11, Yamada teaches the implement tracking unit of Claim 10, and Yamada further teaches wherein the navigation sensor comprises at least two GNSS receivers configured to provide real-time kinematics data (Yamada, Para. 0038-0040 and 0051 – “two GNSS antennas 2a and 2b constituting a GNSS for calculating the position in a global coordinate system of the hydraulic excavator 100 in a work site”, where “a technique of RTK-GNS (Real Time Kinematic-GNSS)” may be used).
In regards to Claim 12, Yamada teaches the implement tracking unit of Claim 10, and Yamada further teaches wherein the implement tracking unit (Yamada, Para. 0026-0027 and 0032 – “posture information measuring devices”): comprises an operator input interface configured to receive operator commands regarding a desired action of the vehicle (Yamada, Para. 0044 and 0055 – a “machine controller” which receives “an operation input from the operation lever” to operate the “hydraulic excavator”; where, further, input can be received from a “monitor” that is a “touch panel type input-output device disposed in the cab”), wherein: the operator command is a forward or backward movement of the vehicle with no relative arm or implement movement (Yamada, Para. 0005 and 0103 – placing the work machine in a “standby posture” while an operator is riding the machine, for example “the lower track structure 12 and the upper swing structure 11 are in the same direction each time” when traveling), but Yamada does not teach the implement tracking unit is configured to activate a motionless state constraint from a stored set of motionless state constraints based on the received operator commands, wherein: the operator command is a pitch movement of the vehicle with no relative arm or implement movement, the operator command is an arm movement without vehicle movement and without relative implement movement.
However, Krone teaches the implement tracking unit is configured to activate a motionless state constraint from a stored set of motionless state constraints based on the received operator commands (Krone, Para. 0055-0056 and 0082 – “output joint angles for each of the individual components 104, 150, 152, 154 of the machine 101 may be fused with each other at a machine level in order to account for movement of two or more components 104, 150, 152, 154 relative to the machine 101 while the two or more components 104, 150, 152, 154 remain in a fixed orientation relative to each other”, such that the fusion constitutes a motionless state constraint; wherein when performing kinematic evaluation, output joint angles may be retrieved form a “kinematic library module” storing previously determined output joint angles), wherein: the operator command is a pitch movement of the vehicle with no relative arm or implement movement, the operator command is an arm movement without vehicle movement and without relative implement movement (Krone, Para. 0020, 0037, and 0055-0056 – where the output joint angle, or motionless state constraint, accounts for “movement of two or more components 104, 150, 152, 154 relative to the machine 101 while the two or more components 104, 150, 152, 154 remain in a fixed orientation relative to each other”; where the components can are a body 104, a boom 150, a stick 152, and a bucket 154, and movement of the components while two or more components remain in a fixed orientation can be any combination of the different components, where the “machine controller 201 may instruct the actuators to move and control the track motors 106, the traction devices 102, the machine body 104, the boom 150, the stick 152, the bucket 154, the hydraulic swivel 103, the hydraulic pistons 190, 192, 194”, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include the implement tracking unit is configured to activate a motionless state constraint from a stored set of motionless state constraints based on the received operator commands wherein: the operator command is a pitch movement of the vehicle with no relative arm or implement movement, the operator command is an arm movement without vehicle movement and without relative implement movement, as taught by Krone, in order to provide previously measured constants when determining posture for ease of calculation and accuracy.
In regards to Claim 13, Yamada in view of Krone and teaches the implement tracking unit of Claim 12, and Yamada in view of Krone and further teaches being configured: to detect a relative motion between two of the independently tracked components based on a history of a local consistency value of the respective IMU component reference frames (Krone, Para. 0026, 0055, and 0072 – “historical and/or empirical data regarding the kinematics and dynamics for the machine”, including “distance and direction” information defining “the coordinates of the components 102, 103, 104, 150, 152, 154, 190, 192, 194” with respect to “other elements of the machine 101”, such as a joint with respect to the machine body, used to determine orientation/coordinate changes relative to other components), and to provide a comparison between a detected relative motion between the two independently tracked components and the operator commands regarding the desired relative motion between the two independently tracked components (Krone, Para. 0071 – where the “machine state control system” provides “feedback to an information exchange interface 550 in order to effect machine controls that achieve optimal positioning and operation of the machine 101 and components 104, 150, 152, 154 of the machine 101”, for example “sensor feedback” regarding “machine linkage positions and velocity, machine pitch rate and roll rate, and swing angle” fused with “signals received from various operator controls”; where the fused data is used to “affect the generation of control command signals that change the operation of various solenoid actuators, throttle controls, fluid cylinder actuation devices, electrical controls, and motion control devices to result in the optimal positioning of the machine”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to further include being configured: to detect a relative motion between two of the independently tracked components based on a history of a local consistency value of the respective IMU component reference frames, and to provide a comparison between a detected relative motion between the two independently tracked components and the operator commands regarding the desired relative motion between the two independently tracked components, as taught by Krone, in order to determine a difference between the machine components and operator commands and adjust the machine component positions to be more accurate.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamada teaches: A work vehicle (Yamada, Para. 0026-0027 – a “work machine”, for example a “hydraulic excavator”) comprising independently tracked components and an implement tracking unit according to claim 10 (See Claim 10), wherein the independently tracked components comprise the implement, a chassis, and an arm connecting the implement to the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0026-0028 and 0032 – a “bucket”, or work implement, connected to an “an upper swing structure 11 and a lower track structure 12 constituting a machine main body”, or chassis, by “an arm” and “a boom”).
In regards to Claim 15, Yamada teaches the work vehicle of Claim 14, and Yamada further teaches wherein the arm comprises a plurality of independently movable arm segments and/or a spherical and/or a cylindrical joint (Yamada, See Fig. 1 and Para. 0026-0029 – where the work implement is comprised of a “boom” and an “arm”, constituting independently movable arm segments, where the “boom” and “arm” are rotatably coupled together), wherein: the independently movable arm segments are movable independently of the chassis, of the implement and of each other, each of the independently movable arm segments are comprised by the independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0027 and 0032 – where the work implement members (boom, arm, bucket) are coupled together and rotated independently, where each component has an “IMU” to determine the angles and inclination directions for each member), and wherein the work vehicle is one of a crawler (Yamada, Para. 0030 – a “lower track structure” provided with track hydraulic motors which drive “a pair of left and right crawlers”), a motor grader, a snow groomer, a front end loader (Yamada, Para. 0023 – where the “work machine” may be “a wheel loader”).
PNG
media_image2.png
399
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yamada, Fig. 1
In regards to Claim 16, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the implement tracking unit of Claim 13, and Yamada further teaches wherein the independently tracked components comprise the implement, a chassis, and an arm connecting the implement to the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0026-0028 and 0032 – a “bucket”, or work implement, connected to an “an upper swing structure 11 and a lower track structure 12 constituting a machine main body”, or chassis, by “an arm” and “a boom”).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view Krone, and further in view of Liao (Chinese Patent No. 114460550).
In regards to Claim 9, Yamada in view of Krone teaches the computer program product of Claim 2, but Yamada in view of Krone does not teach comprising a tracking inconsistency reporting algorithm configured to provide an error message regarding an inability of the reference frame adjustment algorithm to provide the consistent component reference frames, wherein one of the orientation and linear velocity deviations are out of an acceptance range.
However, Liao teaches comprising a tracking inconsistency reporting algorithm configured to provide an error message regarding an inability of the reference frame adjustment algorithm to provide the consistent component reference frames, wherein one of the orientation and linear velocity deviations are out of an acceptance range (Liao, Para. 0084-0086 – wherein a “determined difference”, or deviation, which “transforms the positioning coordinate system from the first sensor to the second sensor”, is determined, and “thresholds”, or an acceptance range, are set in order to determine whether the determined difference indicates a need for correction and recalibration, or error, and issuing “an alert “to prompt on-site personnel to recalibrate the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the computer program product including the above limitations of Yamada in view of Krone to include comprising a tracking inconsistency reporting algorithm configured to provide an error message regarding an inability of the reference frame adjustment algorithm to provide the consistent component reference frames, wherein one of the orientation and linear velocity deviations are out of an acceptance range, as taught by Liao, in order to correct large errors and improve accuracy when determining posture of the components.
Regarding Claim 17, Yamada teaches: An implement tracking unit for deriving a heading of an implement of a work vehicle comprising independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0026-0027 and 0032 – “posture information measuring devices” which acquire “posture information” for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15” of a “work machine”, where “posture information indicates inclination angles and inclination directions of the members”, or heading; where the structures rotate “independently”, and are tracked independently using a plurality of “posture information measuring devices” located on each structure), wherein:
independently tracked components comprise the implement, a chassis, and an arm connecting the implement to the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0026-0028 and 0032 – a “bucket”, or work implement, connected to an “an upper swing structure 11 and a lower track structure 12 constituting a machine main body”, or chassis, by “an arm” and “a boom”), the implement tracking unit comprises:
a set of inertial measurement units providing six degree of freedom IMU data independently of the further inertial measurement units, wherein each of the inertial measurement units is correspondingly associated with one of the independently tracked components (Yamada, Para. 0032 and 0051 – “IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units) are used as the posture information measuring devices 3a to 3d”, where the “information measuring devices” acquire “posture information” for “the upper swing structure 11, the boom 13 and the arm 14 of the work implement 10, and the bucket link 16 of the bucket 15”; the “IMUs” provide “values of accelerations and angular velocities” in the three-dimensions of the IMU coordinate system, such that six degrees of freedom are measured),
a navigation sensor configured to provide externally referenced navigation data comprising data regarding a heading of the chassis (Yamada, Para. 0038-0040 – “GNSS antennas”, for calculating “the position in a global coordinate system”, or external reference frame, “of the hydraulic excavator”, which can determine “the orientation of the upper swing structure”, or component),
a computing unit configured to execute the computer program product according to claim 9 (See Claim 9), and
the computer program product (Yamada, Para. 0110 – “functions and the like may be realized by software by a process in which a processor interprets and executes programs”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ceisel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0200537) teaches a gyroscope bias compensation function dynamically performed to adjust gyroscope bias measurements to compensate for inherent Bias Instability (BI) within the gyroscope.
Collin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0349699) teaches a declination of an object, an orientation of the object and/or a position of the object can be determined using a gyroscope and performing gyroscope bias estimation.
Iwamura, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0171598) teaches correcting an error caused by deviation of an attitude detection device, for example an IMU having an attachment error, with respect to a work machine including a swing body which swings, a working implement being attached to the swing body.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights