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 the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Izumikawa teaches “…wherein the computer is configured to generate based on the human detection information of the determined monitoring information”. (see paragraph 38-48 where the sensors can provide a detection of a human around the machine and this is fed into a controller; and see paragraph 57 where the human operator can also provide an input for an automatic detection to 1. Decelerate the vehicle and 2. Automatically stop the rotational speed of the engine)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of IZUMKAWA with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since IZUMKAWA teaches that a vehicle can include an automatic stopping mode based on the output that there is a person about to get hit where the user can input. The input can provide that if there is an issue then an automatic stopping and deceleration of the engine can be automatically provided to avoid a collision with a bystander. See paragraph 50-58.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 10,322,803 B2 to Flood et al. and assisted in DEERE™ filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2014/077969 A1 to Vian and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210254308A1 to Thibblin and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190218754A1 to Izumikawa that was filed in 2017.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Izumikawa teaches “…wherein the computer is configured to generate based on the human detection information of the determined monitoring information”. (see paragraph 38-48 where the sensors can provide a detection of a human around the machine and this is fed into a controller; and see paragraph 57 where the human operator can also provide an input for an automatic detection to 1. Decelerate the vehicle and 2. Automatically stop the rotational speed of the engine)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of IZUMKAWA with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since IZUMKAWA teaches that a vehicle can include an automatic stopping mode based on the output that there is a person about to get hit where the user can input. The input can provide that if there is an issue then an automatic stopping and deceleration of the engine can be automatically provided to avoid a collision with a bystander. See paragraph 50-58.
PNG
media_image1.png
722
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Flood discloses “..(Currently Amended) A forestry monitoring system [[(1)]] comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV][ (30)]]; and (see FIG. 1, and UAV 104 that flies over the worksite and can provide data to the individual mobile device 114 and then to a forest analysis system computer 116)
a computing device[[ (35)]]; (see element 116 and remote system 120)
wherein the UAV comprises:
an electrical energy storage[[ (31)]];
an electric motor [[(32) ]]powered by the electrical energy storage; (see col. 7, line 53 where the device has a motor to drive the propellors that is an electric motor)
a propulsion arrangement [[(33) ]]driven by the electric motor and configured to aerially maneuver the UAV; and (see col. 7, lines 50-55 where the device has turbines or a propeller )
an imaging arrangement [[(34) ]]configured to collect information about a forestry site[[ (2)]], (see col. 7, line 45 to col. 8, line 10 where the drone has still or video camera and also a LIDAR device)
PNG
media_image2.png
802
1058
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the forestry site having one or more forestry machines[[ (10, 20, 40)]] performing forestry operations therein; and
wherein the computing device is configured to: obtain the collected information from the UAV; process the collected information to determine monitoring information for the forestry site; and determine a path decision for at least one of the one or more forestry machines based on the determined monitoring information of the forestry site; (see abstract and FIG. 8 where the uav can collect data and then provide a production metric and then dispatch the machines to another geographic location based on the metric and see col. 12 where the amount of trees can be determined as the drone can order the machines be sent to another location and sub-area with low productivity can be determined based on the sensor information in block 812-818 and then the machines can be ordered to a new area to help)
Flood is silent but Vian teaches “...wherein the monitoring information comprises human detection information; (see paragraph 73-74 where a human operator can provide input to the forestry manager)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vian with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since Vian teaches that a forest manager application can include a level of intelligence that include an AI or human operator to provide a desired level of intelligence to assist with the forest management application for tasks and objectives of the autonomous vehicle assets. See paragraph 71-42 and 101-108.
Flood discloses “...and wherein the computing device is configured (see Fig. 1 where an individual is detected as using the communication device in FIG. 1 for interaction with the drone)
Thibblin teaches “...to generate an alert in response to a detection of a human within a threshold distance from one of the one or more forestry machines”. (see paragraph 72 and claims 1-2 where an alert is provided when the vehicle is too close to the machine and the steering and power train can also be controlled to avoid the machine)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of THIBBLIN with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since THIBBLIN teaches that a construction vehicle can include a scanning device to scan a 3d model around the vehicle. Then a person or obstacle can be detected in the rear or around the vehicle and it may be run over. The vehicle can provide an alarm, and flashing lights and a loudspeaker for the person to avoid the construction machine and also to provide an automatic correction of steering to avoid the person. This provides an improved safety. See paragraph 70-72.
Flood discloses “..(2. (Original) The forestry monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein: the UAV further comprises a transmitter configured to transmit the collected information to the computing device; and the computing device is remote from the UAV” (see FIG. 1, and UAV 104 that flies over the worksite and can provide data to the individual mobile device 114 and then to a forest analysis system computer 116). (see col. 7, line 45 to col. 8, line 10 where the drone has still or video camera and also a LIDAR device and can send this data to the system 116 and 120)
Flood discloses “..3. (Currently Amended) The forestry monitoring system according to claim 1[[ or claim 2]], wherein: the imaging arrangement comprises at least one of: a RGB camera; a stereo camera; RADAR; LIDAR; and a thermal imaging camera. (see col. 7, line 45 to col. 8, line 10 where the drone has still or video camera and also a LIDAR device)
Flood discloses “..4. (Currently Amended) The forestry monitoring system according to any preceding claim_1
wherein: the monitoring information for the forestry site comprises at least one of:
a position of at least one forestry machine;
one or more existing driving paths[[ (80)]] in the forestry site;
a depth of an impression left by a forestry machine on a driving path; an amount of accumulated water on a driving path;
a location of an obstruction in the forestry site; a topology of the forestry site; a tree number assessment for trees in the forestry site; a tree quality assessment for trees in the forestry site; an incidence of fire in the forestry site; and a progress of the forestry operations in the forestry site”. (see col. 14, lines 1-50)
5. (Canceled)
Flood discloses “...6. (Currently Amended) The forestry monitoring system according to any preceding claim, wherein: the path decision comprises at least one of: selecting a driving path for the forestry machine from a plurality of determined existing driving paths in the forestry site; and determining a new driving path for the forestry machine”. (see col. 22, lines 1-40 where the metric can indicate that the forest machines are taking too long to cut an area and then a number of other machines who have successfully cut down their second area can be redirected to that first area to assist)
Flood discloses “...7. (Original) The forestry monitoring system according to claim 6, wherein: determining a new driving path for the forestry machine comprises: obtaining an origin for the driving path; obtaining a destination for the driving path; obtaining one or more criteria for the new driving path; and solving one or more optimization functions having the origin, the destination, and the one or more criteria as constraints to generate the new driving path for the forestry machine. (see col. 12, lines 1-24 and col. 22, lines 1-40 where the metric can indicate that the forest machines are taking too long to cut an area and then a number of other machines who have successfully cut down their second area can be redirected to that first area to assist)
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Flood discloses “...10. (Original) The forestry monitoring system according to claim 9, wherein: the computing device is further configured to track a geolocated object and/or predict a future motion of the geolocated object. (see col. 18, line 50 to col. 19, line 5).
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 10,322,803 B2 to Flood et al. and assisted in DEERE™ filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2014/077969 A1 to Vian and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210254308A1 to Thibblin and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200349852A1 to Dicosola and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190218754A1 to Izumikawa that was filed in 2017.
Dicosola teaches “...11. (Currently Amended) The forestry monitoring system according to any preceding claim], further comprising:
a mobile charging station[[ (10)]], comprising: (see paragraph 293 and drone charging electric station)
a fuel reservoir[[ (12)]]; (see paragraph 330-333 where the charging station includes a gas drone refueling and hydrogen refueling)
an electrical energy generator [[(13) ]] fueled fuelled by a fuel from the fuel reservoir;
and a traction arrangement [[(11) ]]powered by the electrical energy generator and configured to drive the mobile charging station from the first log harvesting location to a second log harvesting location; and wherein the UAV and mobile charging station each comprise a respective electrical coupling [[(23) ]]configured to mutually couple, thereby enabling charging of the electrical energy storage of the UAV by the electrical energy generator of the mobile charging station (see claims 1-13 where the drones can include a number of docking points for the electric vehicles that can recharge and then take off for the mission).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DICOSOLA with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since DICOSOLA teaches that recharging station can recharge an electric drone or a gas or hydrogen powered drone at a station.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 10,322,803 B2 to Flood et al. and assisted in DEERE™ filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2014/077969 A1 to Vian and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210254308A1 to Thibblin and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200349852A1 to Dicosola and in view of United States Patent No.: US11891192B2 to Tian filed in 2018 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190218754A1 to Izumikawa that was filed in 2017.
Tian teaches “...12. (Original) The forestry monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein: the mobile charging station is comprised in one of the one or more forestry machines”. (see Fig. 4 where the drone can land on a vehicle 130 and a charging pad 100 for recharging the drone 101).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of TIAN with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since TIAN teaches that vehicle can have a mobile charging station can recharge an electric drone or a gas or hydrogen powered drone at a station.
Dicosola teaches 13. (Currently Amended) The forestry monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein: the computing device is configured to: obtain an electrical energy level of the electrical energy storage of the UAV; instruct the UAV to navigate to the mobile charging station in response to a
determination that the obtained electrical energy level is below a minimum level”. (see paragraph 513 where the drone can determine a battery level and if it needs to recharge or can wait for further instructions)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DICOSOLA with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since DICOSOLA teaches that recharging station can recharge an electric drone or a gas or hydrogen powered drone at a station.
Dicosola teaches “...14. (Currently Amended) The forestry monitoring system according to any of claim[[s]] 10[[ to 13]], wherein:
the electrical coupling of the UAV is arranged on an underside of the UAV, and the electrical coupling of the mobile charging station is arranged on an upper side of the mobile charging station, thereby enabling mutual coupling of the respective electrical couplings by a vertical landing of the UAV onto the mobile charging station. (see paragraph 293 and drone charging electric station)
a fuel reservoir[[ (12)]]; (see paragraph 330-333 where the charging station includes a gas drone refueling and hydrogen refueling) (see claims 1-13 where the drones can include a number of docking points for the electric vehicles that can recharge and then take off for the mission).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DICOSOLA with the disclosure of Flood with a reasonable expectation of success since DICOSOLA teaches that recharging station can recharge an electric drone or a gas or hydrogen powered drone at a station.
Claim 15-22 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights