DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 26 March 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive, with the Examiner understanding that the amended claim limitations do not recite a mental process but rather improve the system (technological improvement). Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “to transmit the marker worksite map to at least one of the plurality of mobile machines for use by the perception-based localization and navigation system to navigate the mobile machines” and should read as “to transmit the marker worksite map to at least one of the plurality of mobile machines for use by the perception-based localization and navigation system to navigate the at least one of the plurality of mobile machines.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a map developer routine/module configured to receive”, “a marker assignment routine/module configured to identify” in claim 1.
“a marker effectiveness routine/module configured to: receive…” in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa et al. (US 20220137632 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 20180188743 A1) and further in view of Motoyama Hiroyuki (JP 2023075740 A).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Udagawa et al. discloses A
worksite server associated with a plurality of mobile machines at a physical worksite, each mobile machine configured with a perception-based localization and navigation system, the worksite server configured with a map generation application comprising: a map developer routine/module configured ((Figure 4D, and [0071] “a map related to a work area displayed on a communication terminal held by a user. Reference numeral 470 denotes a communication terminal of the user, which is, for example, a tablet or a smartphone. Reference numeral 471 denotes a hand of the user. Reference numeral 472 represents map information on the work area displayed on a display screen of the communication terminal 470. In the illustrated example, a map of a site including a home and a garden of the user as viewed from above is displayed.”). Examiner Notes: See “unmarked worksite development map” as map prior to the user adding any markings. a marker assignment routine/module configured to identify a travel/activity area from the one or more travel/activity areas, to obtain one or more marker positioning factors, ([0072] “reference numeral 475 denotes a boundary traced on the map by the user using a finger of the hand 471. Similarly, reference numeral 476 indicates a boundary traced around the tree space by the user using the finger of hand 471. A tree spaces 474 is an island excluded from the work area. Note that the boundary may be designated by connecting positions pointed by a finger instead of tracing using the finger.”, and [0074] “the user may sequentially point out a plurality of positions of markers on the map along the boundary using the finger of the hand 471 to acquire marker arrangement information as the boundary information. The boundary information may be transmitted from the communication terminal 471 to the work vehicle 10.”) to associate the one or more marker positioning factors with the travel/activity area, (Figure 4D, [0076] “the boundary information (for example, arrangement information of a plurality of markers arranged at the boundary of the work area (position information designated by pointing) or information of a boundary line (line traced with a finger) indicating the boundary of the work area) of the work area designated on the map including the work area is acquired., and see at least paragraphs [0072] – [0075]) a map generator routine/module to generate a marker worksite map in computer-readable format that includes the determined at least one marker position, ([0129] “map information including position information of markers arranged to define a work area is generated and presented to a user.”, and [0132] “The work vehicle 10 generates such map information and stores the map information as a map database while performing work or traveling before starting work. In addition, the generated map information may be presented to the user. As a method of presentation to the user, when a display unit is provided in the work vehicle 10, the presentation may be performed by displaying on the display unit. Alternatively, the work vehicle 10 may transmit map information to a communication terminal (for example, a tablet, a smartphone, or the like) possessed by the user and present the map information on a display screen of the communication terminal.”)
Udagawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose the worksite server configured with a map generation application comprising: a map developer routine/module configured to receive survey data
Wheeler teaches the worksite server configured with a map generation application comprising: a map developer routine/module configured to receive survey data ([0032] “The vehicles 150 may be autonomous vehicles but are not required to be. The online HD map system 110 receives sensor data captured by sensors of the vehicles, and combines the data received from the vehicles 150 to generate and maintain HD maps.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. to incorporate generating a map from a server using sensor data/survey data as taught by Wheeler for the purpose of accurately generating and maintaining a map.
However, Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler fails to explicitly disclose to determine at least one marker position based in part on the one or more marker positioning factors; and a map generator routine/module to generate a marker worksite map in computer-readable format that includes the determined at least one marker position, and to transmit the marker worksite map to at least one of the plurality of mobile machines for use by the perception-based localization and navigation system to navigate the mobile machines.
Motoyama Hiroyuki teaches to determine at least one marker position based in part on the one or more marker positioning factors; and ([0017] “The autonomous running robot system 400 is a system that creates a running map for the autonomous running robot 300 to autonomously run on a predetermined floor and provides the autonomous running robot 300 with the running map. A no-entry area is set on the travel map to prohibit the autonomous mobile robot 300 from entering. The driving map creation device 100 identifies markers (for example, the first marker 1 and the second marker 3) attached to the wall surface of a predetermined floor, and based on the types of the identified markers and their positions on the floor map. to set a boundary between an area where the autonomous mobile robot 300 can travel and an area where entry is prohibited. The autonomous mobile robot 300 acquires the map for travel created by the map creation device for travel 100, and creates a travel plan based on the self-position and obstacle information on the map for travel. As a result, the autonomous mobile robot 300 can autonomously travel a predetermined floor safely and appropriately.”, [0019] “a first marker 1 for setting a boundary between a travelable area and a no-entry area, and a second marker 3 that differs from the first marker 1 and does not set the boundary. For example, the entire surface of the first marker 1 is made of a material with a high reflection intensity, and the second marker 3 is made of a material with a high reflection intensity and a material with a low reflection intensity. These markers may be seals, plates, or poles.”, [0025] “The travel map creation device 100 is a device that creates a travel map for an autonomous travel robot 300 that autonomously travels on a predetermined floor… the traveling map creation device 100 determines the area in which the autonomous traveling robot 300 can travel based on the floor map, the self-position, and the relative positions of the markers. , and a prohibited entry area into which the autonomous mobile robot 300 is prohibited from entering. Then, the driving map creation device 100 creates a driving map in which no-entry areas are set based on no-entry information including the set boundary information.”)
a map generator routine/module to generate a marker worksite map in computer- readable format that includes the determined at least one marker position, and ([0017] “The autonomous mobile robot 300 acquires the map for travel created by the map creation device for travel 100, and creates a travel plan based on the self-position and obstacle information on the map for travel.”, [0025] “The travel map creation device 100 is a device that creates a travel map for an autonomous travel robot 300 that autonomously travels on a predetermined floor. More specifically, while traveling on a predetermined floor according to the user's operation, the traveling map creation device 100 determines the area in which the autonomous traveling robot 300 can travel based on the floor map, the self-position, and the relative positions of the markers. , and a prohibited entry area into which the autonomous mobile robot 300 is prohibited from entering. Then, the driving map creation device 100 creates a driving map in which no-entry areas are set based on no-entry information including the set boundary information.”, and see at least figure 14)
to transmit the marker worksite map to at least one of the plurality of mobile machines for use by the perception-based localization and navigation system to navigate the mobile machines. ([0017] “The autonomous mobile robot 300 acquires the map for travel created by the map creation device for travel 100, and creates a travel plan based on the self-position and obstacle information on the map for travel. As a result, the autonomous mobile robot 300 can autonomously travel a predetermined floor safely and appropriately…the autonomous mobile robot may be equipped with a mobile mapping device.”, [0025] “The travel map creation device 100 is a device that creates a travel map for an autonomous travel robot 300 that autonomously travels on a predetermined floor. More specifically, while traveling on a predetermined floor according to the user's operation, the traveling map creation device 100 determines the area in which the autonomous traveling robot 300 can travel based on the floor map, the self-position, and the relative positions of the markers. , and a prohibited entry area into which the autonomous mobile robot 300 is prohibited from entering. Then, the driving map creation device 100 creates a driving map in which no-entry areas are set based on no-entry information including the set boundary information.”, [0063] “The self-position calculation unit 341, for example, based on the map for running acquired by the running map acquisition unit 342 and the positional relationship of surrounding objects with respect to the main body 301 of the autonomous mobile robot 300 measured by the position sensor 320 , the self-position, which is the position of the main body 301 of the autonomous mobile robot 300 on the map for traveling, is calculated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. and Wheeler to incorporate generating a map including markers as taught by Motoyama Hiroyuki for the purpose of allowing the autonomous mobile robot(s) to navigate its surrounding.
Regarding claim 6, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses The
worksite server of claim 1,
Udagawa et al. discloses wherein the one or more marker positioning factors includes a travel/activity location factor indicative of usability of a position/navigation system different from the perception-based localization and navigation system. ([0073] “the work vehicle 10 can recognize its self-position and orientation using the GPS sensor 48 and the orientation sensor 46, and determine whether or not two detected markers are adjacent markers using the self-position and orientation and the boundary information.”)
Regarding claim 12, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses
The worksite server of claim 1,
Udagawa et al. discloses wherein the one or more travel/activity areas includes at least one selected from the group consisting an operational site, a travel route, and combinations thereof. (Figure 4E and 4F, [0007] “an autonomous work machine that works in a work area and is including a detection unit that detects a plurality of markers arranged to define the work area.”, and [0207] “sets a travel route of the autonomous work machine”)
Regarding claim 13, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses
The worksite server of claim 12,
Udagawa et al. discloses wherein the travel route includes a travel segment corresponding
to at least one selected from the group consisting of a route curve, an intersection, and combinations thereof. (Fig. 4A – 4D, and 4E – 4F).
Regarding claim 14, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses
The worksite server of claim 14,
Udagawa et al. discloses wherein the at least one marker position includes a geometric
location and spatial orientation for a physical marker in the physical worksite. ([0120] “acquires marker position information (position coordinates) of the detected marker as marker information. For example, as described with reference to FIG. 4D in the first embodiment, the marker position information is stored in advance in the memory 44c as map information so that the marker position information can be referred to.”, and Figure 4D)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa et al. (US 20220137632 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 20180188743 A1), in view of Motoyama Hiroyuki (JP 2023075740 A), and further in view of Anderson (US 20110153338 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses The
worksite server of claim 1,
Udagawa et al. discloses wherein the one or more marker positioning factors
(Figure 4D, and [0074] “As indicated by black circles 477 in FIG. 4D, the user may sequentially point out a plurality of positions of markers on the map along the boundary using the finger of the hand 471 to acquire marker arrangement information as the boundary information. The boundary information may be transmitted from the communication terminal 471 to the work vehicle 10.”)
However, Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki fails to
explicitly disclose an intrinsic marker positioning factor … obtained from the unmarked worksite development map
Anderson teaches an intrinsic marker positioning factor … obtained from the unmarked
worksite development map ([0005] “landmark placement by map. A map of a worksite is identified. A mission having a number of tasks for the worksite is identified. Landmark positions and placements are determined for the mission using the map of the worksite. A number of landmarks are deployed using the landmark positions and placements determined for the mission.”, and [0035] “Natural landmarks may include, for example, without limitation, tree trunks. Other types of landmarks may include, for example, building architectural features, driveways, sidewalks, curbs, fences, and/or any other suitable landmarks.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki to incorporate plurality of natural landmarks as taught by Anderson for “use in localization by navigation system 114 of autonomous vehicle 112 during execution of the area coverage task.” (Anderson, [0031])
Claims 3-4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa et al. (US 20220137632 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 20180188743 A1), in view of Motoyama Hiroyuki (JP 2023075740 A), and further in view of Oetken et al. (US 20200117201 A1).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler
and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses The worksite server of claim 1,
However, Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki fails to
explicitly disclose wherein the one or more marker positioning factors includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: a topology factor associated with one or more worksite features, an environmental factor associated with the physical worksite; a system resolution factor associated with the perception-based localization and navigation system; an operational factor associated with at least one of the plurality of mobile machines; and combination thereof.
Oetken et al. teaches wherein the one or more marker positioning factors includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: a topology factor associated with one or more worksite features, an environmental factor associated with the physical worksite; a system resolution factor associated with the perception-based localization and navigation system; an operational factor associated with at least one of the plurality of mobile machines; and combinations thereof. ([0041] “Control station 50 can be configured to link location data for work area 104 with electronic data indicative of the topography of construction site 70. In the example shown in FIG. 4, work area 104 is partitioned into twenty-five different cells, each having a graphic display state corresponding to a location within work area 104. Greater or fewer cells could be used, in other embodiments. Work area 104 within display screen 146 can include topographical features of construction site 70 to define a terrain map 154. For example, the elevation of locations within work area 104 can be shown using contour lines.”, and [0043] “Control station 50 can obtain the topographic data obtained by drone 72, for example, as well as the boundaries for work area 104 in order to plan course 142 through work area 104 for any of vehicles described herein. For example, control station 50 can route compactor 14 through work area 104 to avoid exclusion area 124. Likewise, course 142 can be plotted by control station 50 or by an operator of control station 50 to avoid topographical features that can potentially be hazardous for the autonomous vehicle. For example, slope 80, ravine 81, drop-off 82 and ditch 98 can be avoided. In particular, control station 50 can determine for specific machines which types of elevation changes in the topography of construction site 70 should be avoided.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki to incorporate topography data of a worksite as taught by Oetken et al. for the purpose of “plotting a course for the autonomous vehicle through the work area to avoid topography incompatible with the specific autonomous vehicle’s capabilities”. ([0043], Oetken et al.)
Regarding claim 4, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler, Motoyama Hiroyuki and Oetken et al.
discloses The worksite server of claim 3,
Oetken et al. teaches wherein the topology factor is indicative of one or more of an incline,
a grade, a slope, and an elevation obstruction. ([0041] “Control station 50 can be configured to link location data for work area 104 with electronic data indicative of the topography of construction site 70. In the example shown in FIG. 4, work area 104 is partitioned into twenty-five different cells, each having a graphic display state corresponding to a location within work area 104. Greater or fewer cells could be used, in other embodiments. Work area 104 within display screen 146 can include topographical features of construction site 70 to define a terrain map 154. For example, the elevation of locations within work area 104 can be shown using contour lines.”, and [0043] “Control station 50 can obtain the topographic data obtained by drone 72, for example, as well as the boundaries for work area 104 in order to plan course 142 through work area 104 for any of vehicles described herein. For example, control station 50 can route compactor 14 through work area 104 to avoid exclusion area 124. Likewise, course 142 can be plotted by control station 50 or by an operator of control station 50 to avoid topographical features that can potentially be hazardous for the autonomous vehicle. For example, slope 80, ravine 81, drop-off 82 and ditch 98 can be avoided. In particular, control station 50 can determine for specific machines which types of elevation changes in the topography of construction site 70 should be avoided.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler, Motoyama Hiroyuki and Oetken et al. to incorporate topography data of a worksite as taught by Oetken et al. for the purpose of “plotting a course for the autonomous vehicle through the work area to avoid topography incompatible with the specific autonomous vehicle’s capabilities”. ([0043], Oetken et al.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa et al. (US 20220137632 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 20180188743 A1), in view of Motoyama Hiroyuki (JP 2023075740 A), in view of Oetken et al. (US 20200117201 A1), and further in view of Takenaga et al. (US 20050027437 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler, Motoyama Hiroyuki and Oetken et al.
discloses The worksite server of claim 3,
However, Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler, Motoyama Hiroyuki and Oetken et
al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more marker positioning factors includes a traffic factor associated with the plurality of mobile machines.
Takenaga et al. teaches wherein the one or more marker positioning factors includes a
traffic factor associated with the plurality of mobile machines. ([0013] “displaying a traffic condition indicator related to the traffic condition in a manner superimposed on the map”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler, Motoyama Hiroyuki and Oetken et a. to incorporate traffic condition indicator related to traffic condition as taught by Takenaga et al. for the purpose of allowing the mobile machine/vehicle to avoid traffic jams and to avoid possible collision with other mobile machine(s)/vehicle(s), increasing safety.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa et al. (US 20220137632 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 20180188743 A1), in view of Motoyama Hiroyuki (JP 2023075740 A) and further in view of Martin et al. (US 20240057501 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Udagawa et al. in view of Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki discloses
The worksite server of claim 1,
However, Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki fails to
explicitly disclose further comprising a library of predefined positioning rules and definitions for marker positioning; and the marker assignment routine/module determines the at least one marker position based in part on the library of predefined positioning rules and definitions.
Martin et al. teaches further comprising a library of predefined positioning rules and
definitions for marker positioning; and the marker assignment routine/module determines the at least one marker position based in part on the library of predefined positioning rules and definitions. ([0024] “one or more markers may be placed at one or more predefined positions in an area, which is illustrated in FIG. 3. The one or more markers can be extracted from the environment via the operations 400 shown in FIG. 4”, and [0025] “a setup process of a system include markers for localization may include: [0026] Operator places markers around a boundary of an environment (for IR markers, perhaps attached to a metal post that has been painted with IR reflective paint); [0027] Operator places a system of a working vehicle into a “mapping” mode; [0028] Operator drives the working vehicle around the boundary of environment to collect data about placement of markers; and/or [0029] System generates a landmark map and saves to storage.”, [0054] “the operator may place the marker 53 indicating the detour for the working machine to scan. As one example, an operator may know about an obstacle, such as a ditch, that may be difficult for the working machine's perception system 51 to identify in poor lighting conditions. By placing the marker 53 near the obstacle, the operator may ensure that the working machine 100 will navigate around the obstacle regardless of whether the obstacle is directly recognized in the poor lighting conditions by the perception system 51 or not. The working machine 100 may determine when and how to perform the detour responsive to scanning the indicia 54. In another example, similar to the detour example, an operator may place the marker 53 to instruct the working machine 100 to park itself at a designated location, such as on a trailer or at a specific location in the field or other work area.”, and [0058] “The marker 53 may be placed in a predefined position in a work area (e.g., a known geographic location, such as a lat/long position, a GNSS location, or the like), and may contain indicia 54, such as a QR code or some other machine-readable optical image.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Udagawa et al. in combination with Wheeler and Motoyama Hiroyuki to incorporate storing predefined positioning as taught by Martin et al. for the purpose of allowing the working machine to perform its task at a designated location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 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
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 MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights