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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 10 recites:
A method for controlling a work machine, the work machine including a vehicle body that includes a rear frame and a front frame that is connected to the rear frame so as to be pivotable left and right, a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body, a steering actuator for steering the traveling wheel to the left and right, and an articulate actuator for changing an articulate angle between the rear frame and the front frame (The Examiner notes that the work machine itself is not a part of the claimed method and therefore does not carry patentable weight), the method comprising:
detecting a steering angle of the traveling wheel;
detecting the articulate angle;
receiving a signal indicating a presence of an object in a periphery of the work machine;
setting a detection range in the periphery of the work machine in accordance with the steering angle and the articulate angle; and
determining the presence of the object in the detection range based on the signal output by an object sensor.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “setting a detection range in the periphery of the work machine in accordance with the steering angle and the articulate angle (decision based on data); and
determining the presence of the object in the detection range based on the signal output by an object sensor (determination based on data and settings)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 19.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 10: A method for controlling a work machine, the work machine including a vehicle body that includes a rear frame and a front frame that is connected to the rear frame so as to be pivotable left and right, a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body, a steering actuator for steering the traveling wheel to the left and right, and an articulate actuator for changing an articulate angle between the rear frame and the front frame, the method comprising: detecting a steering angle of the traveling wheel; detecting the articulate angle; receiving a signal indicating a presence of an object in a periphery of the work machine;
Claim 19: A system for controlling a work machine, the work machine including a vehicle body that includes a rear frame and a front frame that is connected to the rear frame so as to be pivotable left and right, a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body, a steering actuator for steering the traveling wheel to the left and right, and an articulate actuator for changing an articulate angle between the rear frame and the front frame, the system comprising: a steering angle sensor configured to detect a steering angle of the traveling wheel; an articulate angle sensor configured to detect the articulate angle; an object sensor configured to detect an object in a periphery of the work machine, and outputs a signal indicating a presence of the object; a controller.
The additional element in the preamble of “A method/system for controlling a work machine, the work machine including a vehicle body that includes a rear frame and a front frame that is connected to the rear frame so as to be pivotable left and right, a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body, a steering actuator for steering the traveling wheel to the left and right, and an articulate actuator for changing an articulate angle between the rear frame and the front frame” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As stated above, the actual work machine is not claimed as part of the method/system and is only incorporated to be where the data originates. The claims only require acquiring data and making determinations based on the data. A steering angle sensor configured to detect a steering angle of the traveling wheel; an articulate angle sensor configured to detect the articulate angle; an object sensor configured to detect an object in a periphery of the work machine, and outputs a signal indicating a presence of the object all represent mere data gathering steps and only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A controller (generic processor) is generally recited and not qualified as a particular machine.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 is not rejected because the work machine itself is part of the claimed invention.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 11-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherney et al. (US 20210339753 A1), hereinafter “Cherney”.
Regarding Claim 1, Cherney teaches a work machine (Cherney [00022] machine 102 comprises a work machine, such as a construction machine, turf management machine, forestry machine, agricultural machine, etc.) comprising:
a vehicle body including a rear frame and a front frame connected to the rear frame so as to be pivotable left and right (Cherney [0042] In the illustrated example, machine 200 comprises an articulating body where a front portion 229 is pivotably connected to a rear portion 231 at a pivot joint 233. See Fig. 2 229, 231, and 233);
a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body (Cherney [0022] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing one example of a mobile machine architecture 100 that includes a mobile machine 102 having a set of ground engaging elements (e.g., wheels, tracks, etc.). Also see [0041] Machine 200 includes […] ground-engaging element(s) 228 (e.g., wheels). See Fig. 2 228);
a steering actuator usable to steer the traveling wheel to the left and right (Cherney [0032] Controllable subsystems 106 can include propulsion subsystem 152, steering subsystem 154, material handling subsystem 155, one or more different actuators 156 that can be used to change machine settings, machine configuration, etc., power utilization subsystem 158, and it can include a wide variety of other systems 160, some of which are described below. Also see [0033] By way of example, settings control logic 144 can actuate actuators 156 that change the operation of material handling subsystem 155, propulsion subsystem 152, and/or steering subsystem 154. The steering system must be able to influence the wheels);
an articulate actuator usable to change an articulate angle between the rear frame and the front frame (Cherney [0032] Controllable subsystems 106 can include propulsion subsystem 152, steering subsystem 154, material handling subsystem 155, one or more different actuators 156 that can be used to change machine settings, machine configuration, etc., power utilization subsystem 158, and it can include a wide variety of other systems 160, some of which are described below. Also see [0033] By way of example, settings control logic 144 can actuate actuators 156 that change the operation of material handling subsystem 155, propulsion subsystem 152, and/or steering subsystem 154. The steering system must be able to influence the articulate angle);
a steering angle sensor configured to detect (Cherney [0071] Referring to the example shown in FIG. 2, steering angle (block 458) is indicative of an angle of the front and/or rear wheels relative to the frame of machine 200.);
an articulate angle sensor configured to detect (Cherney [0071] Articulation angle (block 460) is indicative of the articulation angle between the front portion 228 and rear portion 231.);
an object sensor configured to detect (Cherney [0044] Object detection sensor(s) 205 are configured to send a detection signal from rear end 209 of machine 200 and receives reflections of the detection signal to detect one or more objects behind machine 200.); and
a controller configured to set a detection range in the periphery of the work machine, and determine the presence of the object in the detection range based on the signal from the object sensor (Cherney [0061] At block 410, the detection range is dynamically adjusted by system 342. As mentioned above, the detection range controls an extent (e.g., a distance from machine 102) that system 310 detects the terrain and/or object detection system 308 detects objects. Also see [0055] System 126 also includes a dynamic detection range control system 342. System 342 is configured to dynamically control a detection range of system 126. And [0056] Range setting logic 344 is configured to set the detection range based on one or more inputs. For example, a detection range controls the range of operation of object detection system 308 and/or terrain detection system 310. The range can be set based on user input, automatically, or otherwise.),
the controller being configured to set the detection range in accordance with the steering angle and the articulate angle (Cherney [0062] the detection range can be based on detected operating characteristics of machine 102, such as a target operation, machine speed, machine configuration, etc.).
Regarding Claim 10, Cherney teaches a method for controlling a work machine, the work machine (Cherney [00022] machine 102 comprises a work machine, such as a construction machine, turf management machine, forestry machine, agricultural machine, etc.) including a vehicle body that includes a rear frame and a front frame that is connected to the rear frame so as to be pivotable left and right (Cherney [0042] In the illustrated example, machine 200 comprises an articulating body where a front portion 229 is pivotably connected to a rear portion 231 at a pivot joint 233. See Fig. 2 229, 231, and 233), a traveling wheel supported by the vehicle body (Cherney [0022] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing one example of a mobile machine architecture 100 that includes a mobile machine 102 having a set of ground engaging elements (e.g., wheels, tracks, etc.). Also see [0041] Machine 200 includes […] ground-engaging element(s) 228 (e.g., wheels). See Fig. 2 228), a steering actuator for steering the traveling wheel to the left and right (Cherney [0032] Controllable subsystems 106 can include propulsion subsystem 152, steering subsystem 154, material handling subsystem 155, one or more different actuators 156 that can be used to change machine settings, machine configuration, etc., power utilization subsystem 158, and it can include a wide variety of other systems 160, some of which are described below. Also see [0033] By way of example, settings control logic 144 can actuate actuators 156 that change the operation of material handling subsystem 155, propulsion subsystem 152, and/or steering subsystem 154. The steering system must be able to influence the wheels), and an articulate actuator for changing an articulate angle between the rear frame and the front frame (Cherney [0032] Controllable subsystems 106 can include propulsion subsystem 152, steering subsystem 154, material handling subsystem 155, one or more different actuators 156 that can be used to change machine settings, machine configuration, etc., power utilization subsystem 158, and it can include a wide variety of other systems 160, some of which are described below. Also see [0033] By way of example, settings control logic 144 can actuate actuators 156 that change the operation of material handling subsystem 155, propulsion subsystem 152, and/or steering subsystem 154. The steering system must be able to influence the articulate angle), the method comprising:
detecting a steering angle of the traveling wheel (Cherney [0071] Referring to the example shown in FIG. 2, steering angle (block 458) is indicative of an angle of the front and/or rear wheels relative to the frame of machine 200.);
detecting the articulate angle (Cherney [0071] Articulation angle (block 460) is indicative of the articulation angle between the front portion 228 and rear portion 231.);
receiving a signal indicating a presence of an object in a periphery of the work machine (Cherney [0044] Object detection sensor(s) 205 are configured to send a detection signal from rear end 209 of machine 200 and receives reflections of the detection signal to detect one or more objects behind machine 200.);
setting a detection range in the periphery of the work machine in accordance with the steering angle and the articulate angle (Cherney [0062] the detection range can be based on detected operating characteristics of machine 102, such as a target operation, machine speed, machine configuration, etc.); and
determining the presence of the object in the detection range based on the signal output by an object sensor (Cherney [0061] At block 410, the detection range is dynamically adjusted by system 342. As mentioned above, the detection range controls an extent (e.g., a distance from machine 102) that system 310 detects the terrain and/or object detection system 308 detects objects. Also see [0055] System 126 also includes a dynamic detection range control system 342. System 342 is configured to dynamically control a detection range of system 126. And [0056] Range setting logic 344 is configured to set the detection range based on one or more inputs. For example, a detection range controls the range of operation of object detection system 308 and/or terrain detection system 310. The range can be set based on user input, automatically, or otherwise.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney (as stated above) in view of Ishizaki (US 20200311964 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Cherney (as stated above) teaches change the detection range from the reference range in accordance with the articulate angle (Cherney [0062] the detection range can be based on detected operating characteristics of machine 102, such as a target operation, machine speed, machine configuration, etc.).
Cherney (as stated above) is not relied upon to teach to set a reference range of the detection range based on a width of the vehicle body.
Ishizaki teaches to set a reference range of the detection range based on a width of the vehicle body (Ishizaki [0041] The expected traveling region AP of the forklift 10 is derived from the steering angle θ1 and the dimension information of the forklift 10. […] The dimension information of the forklift 10 is stored in the memory 22 of the main controller 20 or the storage portion 43 of the object detection device 41. When the memory 22 stores the dimension information of the forklift 10, the object detection device 41 obtains the dimension information of the forklift 10 from the main controller 20.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cherney (as stated above) in view of Ishizaki, to explicitly teach to set a reference range of the detection range based on a width of the vehicle body, because setting a detection range based on the dimensions of the work machine, ensure that object detection is accurate to the actual path of the machine (Ishizaki [0040] As shown in FIGS. 4, 6, and 7, at step S4, the object detection device 41 derives an expected traveling region AP of the forklift 10. The expected traveling region AP is an area where the forklift 10 is expected to pass through when the forklift 10 continues to travel at the steering angle θ1 set at the time when step S4 is performed. The object detection device 41 obtains the detection result of the steering angle sensor 26 from the main controller 20.).
Regarding Claim 3, Cherney in view of Ishizaki (as stated above) further teaches to curve the detection range in accordance with a turning radius of the work machine corresponding to the articulate angle when the work machine turns in accordance with the articulate angle (Cherney [0061] At block 410, the detection range is dynamically adjusted by system 342. As mentioned above, the detection range controls an extent (e.g., a distance from machine 102) that system 310 detects the terrain and/or object detection system 308 detects objects. Also see [0055] System 126 also includes a dynamic detection range control system 342. System 342 is configured to dynamically control a detection range of system 126. And [0056] Range setting logic 344 is configured to set the detection range based on one or more inputs. For example, a detection range controls the range of operation of object detection system 308 and/or terrain detection system 310. The range can be set based on user input, automatically, or otherwise. The range is adjusted based on at least the configuration of the work machine, which includes the articulate angle).
Regarding Claim 11, Cherney (as stated above) teaches changing the detection range from the reference range in accordance with the articulate angle (Cherney [0062] the detection range can be based on detected operating characteristics of machine 102, such as a target operation, machine speed, machine configuration, etc.).
Cherney (as stated above) is not relied upon to teach setting a reference range of the detection range based on a width of the vehicle body.
Ishizaki teaches setting a reference range of the detection range based on a width of the vehicle body (Ishizaki [0041] The expected traveling region AP of the forklift 10 is derived from the steering angle θ1 and the dimension information of the forklift 10. […] The dimension information of the forklift 10 is stored in the memory 22 of the main controller 20 or the storage portion 43 of the object detection device 41. When the memory 22 stores the dimension information of the forklift 10, the object detection device 41 obtains the dimension information of the forklift 10 from the main controller 20.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Cherney (as stated above) in view of Ishizaki, to explicitly teach setting a reference range of the detection range based on a width of the vehicle body, because setting a detection range based on the dimensions of the work machine, ensure that object detection is accurate to the actual path of the machine (Ishizaki [0040] As shown in FIGS. 4, 6, and 7, at step S4, the object detection device 41 derives an expected traveling region AP of the forklift 10. The expected traveling region AP is an area where the forklift 10 is expected to pass through when the forklift 10 continues to travel at the steering angle θ1 set at the time when step S4 is performed. The object detection device 41 obtains the detection result of the steering angle sensor 26 from the main controller 20.).
Regarding Claim 12, Cherney in view of Ishizaki (as stated above) further teaches curving the detection range in accordance with a turning radius of the work machine corresponding to the articulate angle when the work machine turns in accordance with the articulate angle (Cherney [0061] At block 410, the detection range is dynamically adjusted by system 342. As mentioned above, the detection range controls an extent (e.g., a distance from machine 102) that system 310 detects the terrain and/or object detection system 308 detects objects. Also see [0055] System 126 also includes a dynamic detection range control system 342. System 342 is configured to dynamically control a detection range of system 126. And [0056] Range setting logic 344 is configured to set the detection range based on one or more inputs. For example, a detection range controls the range of operation of object detection system 308 and/or terrain detection system 310. The range can be set based on user input, automatically, or otherwise. The range is adjusted based on at least the configuration of the work machine, which includes the articulate angle).
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for Claims 4-9, and 13-18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and their respective dependent claims, Cherney in view of Ishizaki (as stated above) does not seem to fairly teach or suggest a leaning actuator configured to change a leaning angle of the traveling wheel; and
a leaning angle sensor configured to detect the leaning angle, the controller being configured to change the detection range from the reference range in accordance with the leaning angle.
Regarding Claims 7, 16, and their respective dependent claims, Cherney in view of Ishizaki (as stated above) does not seem to fairly teach or suggest a leaning actuator configured to change a leaning angle of the traveling wheel, and detecting the leaning angle; and
changing the detection range from the reference range in accordance with the leaning angle.
Okamune (JP 2021143579 A) teaches a leaning actuator configured to change a leaning angle of the traveling wheel (Okamune [0026] At the front end of the front frame 22, the front wheel 11, for example, one wheel on each side, is rotatably attached. The front wheel 11 is mounted steerably by extending and contracting the steering cylinder 80. The front wheel 11 is mounted in a tilted lateral direction by the extension and contraction of the leaning cylinder 92 (see Figure 5).).
Cherney, as best understood by the Examiner, when considered alone and in combination with the remaining prior art of record does not seem to fairly teach or suggest changing the detection range from the reference range in accordance with the leaning angle. Although Cherney does adjust the detection range based on sensor data and configuration of the work machine, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the disclosure of Cherney by installing a leaning actuator and sensor specifically for the purpose of adjusting the detection range of the object detection sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitchell et al. (US 20180170369 A1) discloses a System And Method For Collision Mitigation During Machine Articulation.
O’Donnel (US 20200019192 A1) discloses Object Detection And Implement Position Detection System.
Horstman (US 20150165856 A1) discloses a Vehicle With Automatically Leanable Wheels, including a wheel lean sensor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights