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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 5 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 5 and 15 correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 5 and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 6-9, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s arguments that amended claims 1 and 12 recite the practical application of causing actual physical movement of the mobile machine to resolve the marker obstruction. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-12, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 and the prior art rejection(s) of their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, Applicant argues that Anderson fails to disclose “wherein the obstruction resolution is a motion instruction communicated from the obstruction resolution module to a mobile machine causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker.” The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s arguments, as Anderson is silent regarding communicating a motion instruction from the obstruction resolution module to a mobile machine causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claim 17 are rendered moot, as Miller is no longer relied upon in rejecting claim 17.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 102 rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 and the prior art rejection(s) of their respective dependent claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claim 1, while it is clear that the mobile machine causes the marker obstruction and subsequently moves out of proximity with respect to the physical marker, the Examiner nevertheless recommends amending the limitation “wherein the obstruction resolution is a motion instruction communicated from the obstruction resolution module to a mobile machine causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker.” to more clearly establish that the mobile machine causes the marker obstruction. At a glance, the limitation could be interpreted as the marker obstruction being caused to move the mobile machine (though reading the claims as a whole makes it clear that the marker obstruction is not a physical entity capable of causing such movement; i.e., the claim is not indefinite).
Independent claim 12 similarly recites “wherein the obstruction resolution is a motion instruction communicated to a mobile machine causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker.” The Examiner recommends amending this limitation similarly to claim 1 as discussed above.
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:
In claim 1, “a marker identification module to identify an assigned marker position…”
The written description discloses ([0082]): “In an embodiment, the analytic map processor 204 can include a marker identification module/routine 240 for identifying an assigned marker position 230 within the computer-readable worksite map 206 for further analysis. For example, the marker identification module/routine 240 can include or comprise an identification algorithm that processes the worksite map 206 to isolate the assigned marker position 230 that corresponds to a physical marker 154 in the physical worksite 102.” Therefore, the marker identification module is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a process, module, routine, or algorithm of a processor.
In claim 1, “a data gathering module to obtain worksite data”
The written description discloses ([0009]): “The onboard electronic controller also includes a data gathering module configured to obtain worksite data from one or more of the physical worksite and the worksite map.” Therefore, the data gathering module is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a module or routine of a processor.
In claim 1, “a detection module configured to analyze the worksite data…”
The written description discloses ([0083]): “To determine if the physical marker 154 corresponding to the identified assigned marker position 230 is perceptibly obstructed, the analytic map processor 204 can include a detection module/routine 242. The detection module/routine 242 is responsible for gathering data and facts associated with the identified assigned marker position 230 which can be compared, contextualized, and analyzed to conclude if a marker obstruction exists.” Therefore, the detection module is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a module or routine of a processor.
In claim 1, “and an obstruction resolution module configured to determine and output an obstruction resolution…”
The written description discloses ([0089]): “If the data analysis submodule/subroutine 254 determines a marker obstruction has occurred, the analytic map processor 204 can include an obstruction resolution module/routine 260 that is programmed to resolve or remedy the perceptible obstruction of the physical marker 154. The obstruction resolution module/routine 260 can output an obstruction resolution 262 that may be in the form of a transmittable data signal.” Therefore, the obstruction resolution module is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a module or routine of a processor.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “…causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker.” The term “out of proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “out of proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear to which degree the mobile machine must move in order to be considered “out of proximity” with respect to the physical marker. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-11 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-11 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Independent claim 12 and dependent claim 22 make substantially parallel use of the relative term “out of proximity” and therefore suffer the same deficiencies as independent claim 1 above. Therefore, independent claim 12 and dependent claim 22 are likewise rendered indefinite.
Claims 13-18 are dependent upon claim 12 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 13-18 are rejected under similar reasoning as claims 12 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Bryce (US 11,334,089 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Anderson teaches a system for perception-based navigation at a physical worksite, comprising:
a plurality of physical markers positioned about the physical worksite at predesignated locations,
Anderson teaches ([0093]): "With reference now to FIG. 8, a block diagram of an a priori knowledge base is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. A priori knowledge base 800 is an example of a priori knowledge base 602 in FIG. 6 located in a knowledge base, such as knowledge base 508 in FIG. 5. A priori knowledge base 800 includes object database 802, sensor table 804, fixed maps and routes database 806, work-site database 808, and landmark information 810." Anderson further teaches ([0095]): "Fixed maps and routes database 806 contains static maps and routes of various work-sites... Fixed maps and routes database 806 can be accessed by sensor processing algorithms 704 in FIG. 7 when identifying object anomalies in an operating environment, in order to compare the fixed map our route with the current information received from sensors, such as sensor 712 in FIG. 7." Anderson even further teaches ([0096]): "Work-site database 808 may contain, for example, specific information about the attributes and location of objects in a particular work-site, information about the weather patterns and normal environmental conditions for the work-site, instructions about specific vehicle movements that should be executed in the work-site, and the like. Landmark information 810 may include information about the attributes and locations of visible landmarks that can be used for vehicle localization. For example, landmark information 810 may contain detailed information about the location of houses in a neighborhood where waste collection activities take place." Paragraph [0097] further teaches that the functional components of the a priori knowledge base may be combined.
a mobile machine operating at the physical worksite,
Anderson teaches ([0075]): "Sensor processing algorithms 504 receives sensor data from sensor system 400 and classifies the sensor data into thematic features. This classification may include identifying objects that have been detected in the environment. For example, sensor processing algorithms 504 may classify an object as a person, curb, tree, waste container, light pole, driveway, or some other type of object. The classification may be performed to provide information about objects in the environment. This information may be used to generate a thematic map, which may contain a spatial pattern of attributes. The attributes may include classified objects. The classified objects may include dimensional information, such as, for example, location, height, width, color, and other suitable information." Anderson further teaches ([0076]): "For example, in an illustrative embodiment, sensor processing algorithms 504 receives data from a laser range finder, such as two dimensional/three dimensional lidar 406 in FIG. 4, identifying points in the environment. User input may be received to associate a data classifier with the points in the environment, such as, for example, a data classifier of "curb" associated with one point, and "street" with another point. Curb and street are examples of thematic features in an environment. Sensor processing algorithms 504 then interacts with knowledge base 508 to locate the classified thematic features on a thematic map stored in knowledge base 508, and calculates the vehicle position based on the sensor data in conjunction with the landmark localization. The vehicle position may be calculated within an accuracy threshold based on the desired level of accuracy. Machine control process 502 receives the environmental data from sensor processing algorithms 504, and interacts with knowledge base 508 and behavior library 510 in order to determine which commands to send to the vehicle's steering, braking, and propulsion components."
the mobile machine including: an onboard electronic controller having a microprocessor and a non- transitory data memory storing a worksite map in a computer-readable format,
Anderson teaches ([0081]): "With reference now to FIG. 6, a block diagram of a knowledge base is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Knowledge base 600 is an example of a knowledge base component of a machine controller, such as knowledge base 508 of machine controller 500 in FIG. 5. For example, knowledge base 600 may be, without limitation, a component of a navigation system, an autonomous machine controller, a semi-autonomous machine controller, or may be used to make management decisions regarding work-site activities." Anderson further teaches ([0093]): "A priori knowledge base 800 is an example of a priori knowledge base 602 in FIG. 6 located in a knowledge base, such as knowledge base 508 in FIG. 5. A priori knowledge base 800 includes object database 802, sensor table 804, fixed maps and routes database 806, work-site database 808, and landmark information 810." Anderson even further teaches ([0093]): "With reference now to FIG. 8, a block diagram of an a priori knowledge base is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. A priori knowledge base 800 is an example of a priori knowledge base 602 in FIG. 6 located in a knowledge base, such as knowledge base 508 in FIG. 5. A priori knowledge base 800 includes object database 802, sensor table 804, fixed maps and routes database 806, work-site database 808, and landmark information 810." Anderson still further teaches ([0095]): "Fixed maps and routes database 806 contains static maps and routes of various work-sites... Fixed maps and routes database 806 can be accessed by sensor processing algorithms 704 in FIG. 7 when identifying object anomalies in an operating environment, in order to compare the fixed map our route with the current information received from sensors, such as sensor 712 in FIG. 7." Anderson yet further teaches ([0096]): "Work-site database 808 may contain, for example, specific information about the attributes and location of objects in a particular work-site, information about the weather patterns and normal environmental conditions for the work-site, instructions about specific vehicle movements that should be executed in the work-site, and the like. Landmark information 810 may include information about the attributes and locations of visible landmarks that can be used for vehicle localization. For example, landmark information 810 may contain detailed information about the location of houses in a neighborhood where waste collection activities take place." Paragraph [0097] further teaches that the functional components of the a priori knowledge base may be combined. At least paragraph [0047] indicates that the machine controller may belong to the vehicle. Claim 1 indicates that the knowledge base may be stored on a non-transitory computer recordable medium.
the worksite map having assigned marker positions corresponding to: the plurality of physical markers,
Anderson teaches ([0096]): "Work-site database 808 may contain, for example, specific information about the attributes and location of objects in a particular work-site, information about the weather patterns and normal environmental conditions for the work-site, instructions about specific vehicle movements that should be executed in the work-site, and the like. Landmark information 810 may include information about the attributes and locations of visible landmarks that can be used for vehicle localization." Anderson further teaches ([0119]): " For example, the vehicle may be operating in normal operating conditions mode, with the online knowledge base indicating it is spring. The sensor table may indicate that the appropriate sensors for normal operating conditions are visible light camera with a view of the street crown, and visible light camera with a view of road edge. However, information about the environment received from the sensors may indicate that snow is covering the ground and obscuring the street and curb or road edge, perhaps due to a late snow. The detection of snow may be verified by accessing the online knowledge base for current weather conditions. As a result, the sensor data indicating snow may be weighed more heavily than information from the sensor table about normal operating conditions, with the sensors chosen to activate adjusted accordingly."
and control zones associated with the assigned marker positions, the control zones defining spatial areas in which objects may perceptibly obstruct the physical markers;
Anderson teaches ([0076]): "For example, in an illustrative embodiment, sensor processing algorithms 504 receives data from a laser range finder, such as two dimensional/three dimensional lidar 406 in FIG. 4, identifying points in the environment. User input may be received to associate a data classifier with the points in the environment, such as, for example, a data classifier of "curb" associated with one point, and "street" with another point. Curb and street are examples of thematic features in an environment. Sensor processing algorithms 504 then interacts with knowledge base 508 to locate the classified thematic features on a thematic map stored in knowledge base 508, and calculates the vehicle position based on the sensor data in conjunction with the landmark localization." Anderson further teaches ([0096]): "Work-site database 808 may contain, for example, specific information about the attributes and location of objects in a particular work-site, information about the weather patterns and normal environmental conditions for the work-site, instructions about specific vehicle movements that should be executed in the work-site, and the like." Anderson even further teaches ([0119]): " For example, the vehicle may be operating in normal operating conditions mode, with the online knowledge base indicating it is spring. The sensor table may indicate that the appropriate sensors for normal operating conditions are visible light camera with a view of the street crown, and visible light camera with a view of road edge. However, information about the environment received from the sensors may indicate that snow is covering the ground and obscuring the street and curb or road edge, perhaps due to a late snow. The detection of snow may be verified by accessing the online knowledge base for current weather conditions. As a result, the sensor data indicating snow may be weighed more heavily than information from the sensor table about normal operating conditions, with the sensors chosen to activate adjusted accordingly."
a perception-based localization and navigation system having a LIDAR device mounted to a machine frame of the mobile machine,
Anderson teaches ([0047]): "With reference now to FIG. 2, a block diagram of components used to control a vehicle is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this example, vehicle 200 is an example of a vehicle, such as truck 104, combine/harvester 112, and mower 114 in FIG. 1. In this example, vehicle 200 includes machine controller 202, steering system 204, braking system 206, propulsion system 208, sensor system 210, and communication unit 212." Anderson further teaches ([0065]): "With reference now to FIG. 4, a block diagram of a sensor system is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Sensor system 400 is an example of one implementation of sensor system 210 in FIG. 2. As illustrated, sensor system 400 includes, for example, ... two dimensional/three dimensional lidar 406... These different sensors may be used to identify the environment around a vehicle."
and a transceiver configured for wireless communication;
Anderson teaches ([0083]): " Online knowledge base 608 may be accessed with a communications unit, such as communications unit 212 in FIG. 2, to wirelessly access the Internet."
and a central worksite server located offboard the mobile machine and in wireless communication with the mobile machine via the transceiver, the central worksite server configured to maintain the worksite map.
Anderson teaches ([0082]): "A priori knowledge base 606 contains static information about the operating environment of a vehicle. Types of information about the operating environment of a vehicle may include, without limitation, a fixed map showing streets, structures, trees, and other static objects in the environment; stored geographic information about the operating environment; and weather patterns for specific times of the year associated with the operating environment. A priori knowledge base 606 may also contain fixed information about objects that may be identified in an operating environment, which may be used to classify identified objects in the environment. This fixed information may include attributes of classified objects, for example, an identified object with attributes of tall, narrow, vertical, and cylindrical, may be associated with the classification of "tree." A priori knowledge base 606 may further contain fixed work-site information. A priori knowledge base 606 may be updated based on information from online knowledge base 608, and learned knowledge base 604." Anderson further teaches ([0083]): " Online knowledge base 608 may be accessed with a communications unit, such as communications unit 212 in FIG. 2, to wirelessly access the Internet."
However, while Anderson does teach that the physical markers may be artificial structures of defined shapes and sizes (see at least [0075]), the physical markers of Anderson cannot be reasonably considered to be configured to reflect a laser or light beam. Bryce teaches infrastructure markers for autonomous vehicles, comprising:
the physical markers being artificial structures of a defined shape and size configured to reflect a laser or light beam;
Bryce teaches (Col. 10 lines 5-26): "Referring now to FIG. 10, marker 10 can be formed in a curved shape. Optionally, when viewed from in front of front panel 12, front panel 12 can be curved such that it is convex (as illustrated in FIG. 10), or front panel 12 can be curved in a concave shape or any other series of curves and/or angular shapes. Optionally, rear panel 16 can comprise a curve of similar shape and magnitude or back panel 16 can be flat or have some other shape—for example a convex front panel 12 and a concave rear panel 16. Convex shapes can allow a vehicle to see marker 10 over an extended period of time because the vehicle can detect marker 10 from an angle that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to detect if marker 10 were not convex. This enables signature 32 to be received and evaluated for a greater period of time. This can help ensure a proper interpretation of signature 32 which can provide improved vehicle locating accuracy. FIG. 15 illustrates several top views of different shapes that marker 10 can be formed into. " At least Col. 3 line 60 – Col. 4 line 15 indicates that LIDAR is used to detect the markers (i.e., “laser beam to travel to and bounce back from the marker”).
the LIDAR device configured to: project a laser or light beam, and capture perception data reflected by the plurality of physical markers to determine a geographic position of the mobile machine,
Bryce teaches (Col. 10 lines 5-26): "Referring now to FIG. 10, marker 10 can be formed in a curved shape. Optionally, when viewed from in front of front panel 12, front panel 12 can be curved such that it is convex (as illustrated in FIG. 10), or front panel 12 can be curved in a concave shape or any other series of curves and/or angular shapes. Optionally, rear panel 16 can comprise a curve of similar shape and magnitude or back panel 16 can be flat or have some other shape—for example a convex front panel 12 and a concave rear panel 16. Convex shapes can allow a vehicle to see marker 10 over an extended period of time because the vehicle can detect marker 10 from an angle that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to detect if marker 10 were not convex. This enables signature 32 to be received and evaluated for a greater period of time. This can help ensure a proper interpretation of signature 32 which can provide improved vehicle locating accuracy. FIG. 15 illustrates several top views of different shapes that marker 10 can be formed into. " At least Col. 3 line 60 – Col. 4 line 15 indicates that LIDAR is used to detect the markers (i.e., “laser beam to travel to and bounce back from the marker”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Bryce to provide the physical markers being artificial structures of a defined shape and size configured to reflect a laser or light beam; and the LIDAR device being configured to: project a laser or light beam, and capture perception data reflected by the plurality of physical markers to determine a geographic position of the mobile machine,. Anderson and Bryce are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of imaging systems for vehicles. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Bryce, as doing so beneficially helps to improve vehicle locating accuracy based on a convex shape configuration of the markers(s), as recognized by Bryce (see at least Col. 10 lines 5-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1, independent claim 12, and dependent claim 22 are presently rejected under 35 USC 112(b). However, independent claims 1 and 12 include subject matter which would be considered allowable if the claims are amended to overcome the present 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Similarly, dependent claim 22, if amended to overcome the present 35 USC 112(b) rejection, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the obstruction resolution is a motion instruction communicated from the obstruction resolution module to a mobile machine causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker.” Independent claim 12 and dependent claim 22 include substantially similar limitations. However, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited features. As discussed in the Response to Arguments above, Anderson is silent regarding communicating a motion instruction from the obstruction resolution module to a mobile machine causing the marker obstruction to move the mobile machine out of proximity with respect to the physical marker. Miller fails to cure this deficiency. While Miller does teach (see at least [0053]) communicating a motion instruction from an obstruction resolution module to a mobile machine, this obstruction refers to an obstruction of a robot 20’s path rather than a marker obstruction.
Additional search and consideration proved unfruitful, yielding no results which teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited limitations. Zhang et al. (US 2012/0314070 A1) is considered the next closest prior art of record, and teaches (see at least [0031]) a scenario wherein a view-blocking-vehicle obscures the slight of lane markers of a rear facing camera of a vehicle 10; however, vehicle 10 itself is caused to speed up until the distance is increased so that the lane markers are visible again. That is, a motion instruction is not communicated to the mobile machine causing the marker obstruction. Even if the vehicle 10 could be considered to be the mobile machine causing the marker obstruction, it would be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the lane markers of Zhang as the claimed physical markers identified by the marker identification module, as the lane markers of Zhang are not included in a worksite map.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
High et al. (US 2017/0261977 A1) teaches unmanned aircraft systems and methods to interact with specifically intended objects, including determining whether obstructions exist at a task location and/or delivery location, wherein the unmanned aircraft is able to alert a customer when an obstruction is detected in order to request the customer to clear the delivery location (see at least [0046]). Abramson (US 2017/0113342 A1) teaches a domestic robot system, wherein the robot may store perimeter maps of work areas in a storage/memory (see at least [0072]) and wherein the robot is capable of navigating itself in a scenario where a navigation marker is not visible or is obscured (see at least [0155]).
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 FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights