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 . Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 6/26/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) filed on 6/26/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are partially persuasive in view of amendments filed 6/26/26.
Claims 4 and 18 still recite indefinite elements including “substantially”.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections to claims 1-3 and 5-17 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 103. filed on 6/26/26, regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 8-9, recite the following:
The Office rejects Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel. The Office asserts that paragraphs [0022]-[0027] and Figure 3 (element 303) of Lacaze disclose the limitation: "the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant." (Office Action page 7).
The Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses this rejection.
As an initial matter, Lacaze does not disclose, teach, or suggest maintaining the distance of the rear part of the machine or the rear wheel to the side of the road substantially constant.
Paragraphs [0022] and [0027] of Lacaze merely describe maintaining a general "serviceable distance" of the vehicle to the curb during route following, or adjusting sideways separation to avoid obstacles (such as parked cars). This is a standard route-following path control. Crucially, Lacaze does not monitor, calculate, or control the specific distance of the rear-end chassis or the rear wheels relative to the curb.
In fact, the physical kinematics of Lacaze's vehicle teach away from this limitation. Figure 3 of Lacaze illustrates a vehicle (301) steering away from the roadside along a modified path (304) to avoid parked cars (302). In a conventionally steered vehicle such as that of Lacaze, steering the front of the vehicle away from a curb causes the rear end of the vehicle to kinematically swing toward the curb (the "tail-swing" effect). Thus, during the steering maneuvers explicitly shown in Lacaze's Figure 3, the distance between the rear part of the vehicle and the curb is not and cannot be maintained constant; rather, the rear end swings closer to the curb, creating a collision hazard.
This is precisely the technical defect of the prior art that the present invention addresses. As disclosed in the Current Application at [0062] and Figures 4a-b, conventional steering modes cause the rear side of the cleaning machine to hit the side of the road when steering away.
To solve this, the present invention introduces a dedicated "curb-follow-sweeping mode" (Claim 1) wherein: "...the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled, and limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road, such that the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant." (Claim 1; see also [0063] and Figures 5a-c).
By forcing the rear wheel to remain parallel to the curb while the front of the vehicle steers away, the present invention actively counteracts tail-swing and keeps the rear-end distance constant.
Because Lacaze lacks rear-wheel steering entirely, and Teixeira Goethel teaches a rear- wheel-only steering system that would render the vehicle completely unsteerable if locked parallel to a curb, the prior art neither discloses nor renders obvious the controlled, parallel rear-wheel constraint of Claim 1.
Accordingly, the cited references fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent Claim 1, and the rejection should be withdrawn.
Regarding the assertion that Lacaze Figure 3 element 304 teaches away from the claimed invention, the Non-Final Rejection distinguishes between the disclosed two autonomous street sweeper modes from Lacaze Figure 3, normal manner (303) and modified path scenario (304) (Lacaze ¶53-60 and Fig. 3). The normal manner maintains the truck at a serviceable distance to the curb which detects the curb and controls the vehicle to follow the curb such that it can be serviced, therefore corresponding to the recited “maintaining the distance of the rear part of the machine or the rear wheel to the side of the road substantially constant”(Lacaze ¶22). In a situation where the vehicle has to drive around an object on the side of the road then the wheels and the entire vehicle cannot maintain consistent distance to the curb without hitting the roadside object. While the vehicle avoids the object the distance is adjusted until it is clear of the object where it maintains a second distance from the curb until it has passed the object in which it returns to the original serviceable distance to the curb as seen in the modified path scenario (304).
If the claim language included more details regarding the free sweeping mode and when the wheels are parallel and/or constant distance relative to the positioning of a roadside object or the like then it may differentiate from the disclosure of Lacaze.
As currently claimed, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 9-12, recite the following:
In addition to the differences of Claim 1 over Lacaze as mentioned on page 6-8 of the Office Action, Applicant notes the following.
Comparing Claim 1 to Lacaze reveals the following distinguishing features:
Lateral Broom Side-Shift: The broom system in the current application is horizontally (sideways) movable relative to the vehicle chassis, and the controller is adapted to move the broom system sideways to control the distance to the curb. In contrast, Lacaze adjusts the distance to the curb solely by steering the entire vehicle chassis (Lacaze [0027]).
Rear-Wheel Steering Angle: The vehicle of the current application features at least one rear wheel configured to rotate along a vertical axis over a vertical angle of 1-50 degrees. In contrast, Lacaze does not disclose rear-wheel steering.
Switchable Sweeping Modes: The controller of the current application is adapted to switch between a sweeping mode and a transport mode, and further switch from a "free sweeping mode" to a "curb-follow-sweeping mode" when in sweeping mode. In contrast, Lacaze lacks these distinct operational and steering modes.
Constrained Parallel Rear-Wheel Control: In the current application the "curb-follow- sweeping mode," the rotation of the rear wheel is controlled and limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road, maintaining a constant distance between the rear part of the machine and the curb. In contrast, Lacaze has no mechanism or control loop to constrain rear-wheel orientation relative to a curb.
The effect of the differentiating features is that integrating a lateral side-shift mechanism allows the sweeper to make rapid, precise, local adjustments to the broom position without constantly steering the entire mass of the vehicle. Adding rear-wheel steering increases the general maneuverability of the vehicle in tight urban spaces. Constraining the rear wheels to remain parallel to the curb in "curb-follow-sweeping mode" prevents the rear end of the vehicle from swinging into and colliding with the curb ("tail-swing" collision) when the vehicle is steered away from the curb or navigates a bend. It decouples the steering of the front wheels from the rear wheels specifically to protect the vehicle's rear chassis from curb impact (Current Application [0006], [0063]).
Based on the technical effects of the distinguishing features, the Objective Technical Problem is formulated as: How to improve the cleaning efficiency and local maneuverability of a curb-following street sweeper while preventing the rear part of the vehicle from colliding with the curb during steering maneuvers.
Faced with the technical problem and starting from Lacaze the skilled person would learn from Teixeira a vehicle that is steered exclusively by the rear wheels (Teixeira Goethel [0028]: "The vehicle is maneuvered by steering (21) which drives the hydraulic cylinder (22) arranged close to the axis of the rear wheel (3)"). The front wheels are fixed traction wheels ([0026]).
The skilled person attempting to apply Teixeira Goethel's steering system to Lacaze, would at the most replace Lacaze's steering with a rear-wheel-only steering system.
Under Claim 1 of the Current Application, however, the rear wheel in "curb-follow- sweeping mode" is limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road.
If the rear wheels of Teixeira Goethel's vehicle were locked or limited to a position parallel to the curb while sweeping, the vehicle would lose all steering capability. It would be physically unable to steer away from the curb or navigate any bends, because its only steering mechanism (the rear axle) would be locked parallel to the curb.
Therefore, the physical steering principles of Teixeira Goethel and the "curb-follow- sweeping mode" of Claim 1 are technically contradictory. A skilled person would not combine these systems because doing so would render the vehicle unsteerable during sweeping operations.
Further, Teixeira Goethel is a purely mechanical/hydraulic vehicle steered manually by an operator (Teixeira Goethel [0008], [0028]). It contains no teaching of a 3D camera-based pavement track system, a controller that automatically switches between "free sweeping" and "curb-follow- sweeping" modes, or a dynamically overriding or constraining rear-wheel angles based on measured curb distance to prevent tail-swing.
Thus, even if a skilled person combined these references, they would not arrive at the automated, sensor-driven mode-switching control system defined in Claim 1.
Therefore, Lacaze and Teixeira alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a controller that dynamically restricts rear-wheel rotation to keep the wheels parallel to the curb during a dedicated "curb-follow-sweeping mode" to prevent rear-end collisions. Furthermore, attempting to force Teixeira Goethel's rear-wheel steering onto Lacaze's vehicle would result in an inoperable, unsteerable machine when the parallel-constraint mode is active.
Claim 1 therefore is non-obvious over the combination of Lacaze and Teixeira.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Non-Final Rejection, Lacaze does disclose switchable sweeping modes including a curb follow mode (element 303 - normal manner) and a free-sweep mode (element 304 – modified path), and Teixeira Goethel, herein “Teixeira”, discloses Lateral Broom Side-Shift (¶5 and Fig. 9) and Rear-Wheel Steering Angle/ Constrained Parallel Rear-Wheel Control (¶26-28 and Fig. 2). The applicant’s alleged combination replacing different aspects of the different references and applying them in the manner stated above is inconsistent with the combination of references as applied in the Non-Final Rejection which is reproduced below:
“The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.”
The combination does not replace the steering principles of Lacaze with the system of Teixeira nor does it replace the automated controls of Lacaze with manual controls of Teixeira as asserted. The combination increases the motion controls of Lacaze by including rear steering controls as well as horizontal movement of the broom, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3), as stated in the Non-Final Rejection. Reciting additional explicit controls and additional maneuver timing as stated above may distinguish over the combination of references, however as currently claimed, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, page 12, recite the following:
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are non-obvious over the combination of Lacaze and Teixeira for the same reasoning as described here above for Claim 1.
Rejections to claims 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are maintained for the same reasoning as described here above for claim 1.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 12-13, recite the following:
Regarding the rejection of Claim 3 as being unpatentable over Lacaze in view of Teixeira and Kossira (US 2013/0054092 A1) , applicant states the following.
Claim 3 depends on Claim 1. The arguments provided here above for Claim 1 therefore apply. The additional distinction of Claim 3 is that front wheel rotates along a front wheel vertical axis, and the rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle which is opposite to a rotation of the front wheel vertical angle (opposite-direction/counter-steering).
The technical effect of this distinction is that when the front wheels and rear wheels rotate in opposite directions (counter-steering), the vehicle's turning radius is significantly reduced. This allows the sweeping machine to navigate extremely tight corners, sharp street bends, and cul-de- sacs while actively sweeping (Current Application [0006]). When combined with the safety override of Claim 1, the rear side of the machine or for that matter the at least one rear wheel cannot hit the side of the road" ([0006]), while "the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant" (Claim 1, [0007]) even during tight counter-steering maneuvers.
The objective technical problem can be formulated as how to provide an improved cleaning machine for a road or pavement or gutter that is better controlled and capable of following curves, curbs, gutter, and sides of a road more accurately, especially when the road makes a bent, while ensuring that the rear side of the machine or the rear wheel does not hit the side of the road.
The skilled person starting from Lacaze would not learn from Teixeira any counter- steering. As established in its description, the front wheels are fixed traction wheels driven by hydraulic motors (Teixeira Goethel [0026]), and the vehicle is steered exclusively by pivoting the rear wheels via a hydraulic cylinder (Teixeira Goethel [0028]). Because the front wheels in Teixeira Goethel do not steer, it is physically impossible for the rear wheels to rotate "opposite to a rotation of the front wheel." Teixeira Goethel completely lacks front-wheel steering and therefore cannot teach or suggest counter-steering.
Regarding the assertion that the references alone do not teach the elements as claimed, the same response to piecemeal analysis as made above to claim 1 is reiterated. Additionally, neither reference is relied upon to disclose claim 3.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 13-14, recite the following:
Kossira does disclose opposite-direction steering (counter-steering) of front and rear wheels (Kossira [0037], Fig. 2) to reduce turning radius. However, Kossira explicitly and repeatedly restricts this active steering control to driving in reverse (backing up) to solve reverse- specific stability issues like the "pendulum effect" and "rear-wheel flutter" (Kossira Abstract, Claims 1 and 18, [0004], [0006], [0035]).
The cleaning machine of the current invention, like other street sweepers, operates and sweeps while driving forward as can also be appreciated from the figures provided in the current application.
A skilled person would not look at a passenger car control system designed exclusively for reversing/parking stability and apply its reverse-specific control curves to a forward-sweeping utility vehicle. There is no teaching in Kossira to use its active steering control in or for forward movement of the vehicle.
Further, Kossira contains no teaching of a pavement tracking system, a 3D camera, or switching between "free sweeping" and "curb-follow-sweeping" modes.
Thus if the skilled person would combine Laczae, Teixeira Goethel and Kossira, they would run into a direct physical and logical contradiction: in the curb-follow-sweeping mode (Claim 1), the rear wheel must be constrained to remain substantially parallel to the curb to maintain a constant rear distance and prevent collision (Current Application [0006], [0063]).
In the opposite-direction steering mode (Claim 3), the rear wheel must rotate opposite to the front wheel to turn tightly.
If the vehicle is turning a corner, these two requirements conflict. If the rear wheel counter- steers (rotates opposite to the front wheel), it cannot remain parallel to the curb; it will swing directly into it.
To resolve this, the controller must dynamically override the counter-steering of Claim 3 and force the rear wheels parallel to the curb when the vehicle is in "curb-follow-sweeping mode" (Current Application [0063]: "The rotation of the rear wheels is so to say over-ride in this curb- follow-sweep mode").
Neither Lacaze, Teixeira Goethel, nor Kossira contains any teaching of a multi-mode controller capable of dynamically overriding counter-steering to enforce a curb-parallel safety constraint.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that the combination of references creates a physical and logical contradiction, similar response to those made above regarding a specific combination replacing distinct elements of the different references to create a physically contradicting system is possible, but not consistent with the combination of references as explicitly defined in the Non-Final Rejection. The sol aspect of Kossira relied upon in the combination is the opposite direction steering system, which would be obvious to combine with the previously combined front steering of Lacaze and the rear steering of Teixeira to control both systems together. No discussion as to the forward/reverse controls of Kossira were relied upon or recited in the combination. As currently claimed, the system is simply adapted to rotate in the opposite direction, which is disclosed in Kossira. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to find and combine references in detailed steering control for road vehicles whether sweeping machines, passenger car controls, as well as other steering control systems for road vehicles.
Including further details regarding the situations or maneuvers as well as the timing that would require this specific steering control may overcome the rejection, however as currently written, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 14-16, recite the following:
Regarding the rejection of Claim 12 as being unpatentable over Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel and Walter, applicant states the following. Claim 12 depends on Claim 11, which in turn depends on independent Claim 1. Therefore, the distinguishing features of Claim 12 over Lacaze include all the structural and mode-switching limitations of Claim 1, plus the specific software limitations of Claim 12. As argued here above, Claim 1 is non-obvious over Lacaze and Teixeira Goethel.
The specific distinguishing features of Claim 12 over Lacaze are:
Rising Edge Identification: The pattern recognition software specifically identifies a "rising edge" (the physical upper edge of a curb) of the pavement (Current Application: Claim 12, [0022]).
Multi-Frame Temporal Validation: The software is adapted to validate the position of the rising edge on at least two consecutive 3D-images, and combinations thereof (Current Application: Claim 12, [0022]).
The technical effect of these features is that by validating the identified points of the rising edge across at most consecutive 3D frames, the system establishes whether the detected curb is "reliable for at least 2 consecutive frames/images" before "accepting the representation of the curb" and sending these points to the machine control (Current Application: [0006]). This temporal validation filters out transient visual noise, debris, and changing light conditions, thereby "adapting for shadow and/or contrast [to] improve the reliability of the present cleaning machine" and preventing erroneous automated steering or broom adjustments (Current Application: [0006], [0019]).
The objective technical problem can be defined as how to provide an automated pavement track system that improves the reliability of the cleaning machine under changeable light conditions and changing seasons by adapting for shadow and/or contrast to ensure the identified rising edge of a curb is a true physical structure before initiating control actions.
Starting from Lacaze the skilled person would not learn from Teixeira how to solve the problem as Teixeira Goethel is silent on any camera, pattern recognition software, or automated control loops. Teixeira Goethel relies on manual steering and mechanical/hydraulic linkages ([0008], [0028]). Therefore, it cannot contribute to solving a software-based tracking reliability problem.
According to the Examiner the skilled person would learn from Walter (US 2019/0213427 A1) to validate a position of a "rising edge" on at least two consecutive 3D images (2026-03-26 Non Final Office Action: page 16).
However, the actual disclosure of Walter is a forward-looking collision-avoidance system designed to detect and validate elevated collision obstacles (such as other vehicles or sign gantries) in front of an ego-vehicle (US 2019/0213427 A1: Abstract, [0001], [0023]).
Walter achieves this by calculating homographs of sequential images to distinguish a flat "ground plane" (road surface) from vertical "back planes" or "side planes" ([0033], [0111]).
Walter does not disclose, mention, or suggest identifying or validating a "rising edge" (i.e., a curb's physical boundary). Its algorithms are designed to classify entire 3D planar surfaces to avoid collisions, not to detect and track the small, localized height boundaries of a roadside curb for sweeping alignment.
A skilled person seeking to improve the lateral tracking accuracy of a street sweeper's broom relative to a curb would not look to a vehicle collision-avoidance program like Walter because collision avoidance systems (Walter) are designed to detect large, prominent obstacles in the vehicle's driving corridor (US 2019/0213427 A1: [0060]). Pavement track systems (Current Application) require highly localized, high-precision edge-tracking of the road boundary (Current Application: [0006]).
Furthermore, Walter's mathematical validation method-which relies on finding the smallest "reprojection error" among calculated plane homographs (US 2019/0213427 A1: [0031], [0110])-is fundamentally different from validating whether multiple points of a rising edge maintain a linear relationship across consecutive frames (Current Application: [0006], [0022]).
Lacaze, Teixeira Goethel and Walter alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest validating the physical position of a curb's "rising edge" over at least two consecutive 3D images to ensure reliability before initiating automated control actions. The Examiner's rejection rests on a mischaracterization of Walter, which is structurally and functionally incompatible with the localized, edge-tracking requirements of the current cleaning machine.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (the detailed identification and validation of a curb's physical boundary and when it would be applied/utilized) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the situation of a sweeping vehicle autonomously operating on a road as disclosed in Lacaze, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have improved the object identification and collision avoidance systems utilizing the identification and validation system of Walter.
Including further details such as defining the rising edge as the curb’s physical boundary as well as how the detection/validation is determined and utilized to detect and track the small, localized height boundaries of a roadside curb for sweeping alignment as stated above may overcome the rejection as written. However, the rejections to the claims as currently written are maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 16-19, recite the following:
Regarding the rejection of Claims 13, 14 and 17 as being unpatentable over Lacaze, Teixeira as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Anderson (US 2010/0063648 A1) , applicant notes the following.
Claim 13 depends on Claim 1. The arguments provided here above to argue non- obviousness for Claim 1 are valid here as well.
In addition, on page 18 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts: "Regarding Claim 13, Lacaze further discloses wherein the control is electronic, and wherein a CAN-bus is used for control (23 - drive-by-wire electrical control of vehicle controls corresponding to the recited electronic control distributing signals via a CAN-bus).
However, a direct inspection of paragraph [0023] of Lacaze reveals only the following text: "In the automotive industry, a drive-by-wire kit involves the use of electrical or electromechanical systems for performing vehicle functions that are traditionally achieved by mechanical linkages. This technology replaces the traditional mechanical control systems with electronic control systems using electromechanical actuators and human-machine interfaces such as pedal and steering feel emulators."
There is absolutely no mention of "CAN-bus" or "CAN" (other than as a common verb, e.g., "can be functional") in paragraph [0023] or anywhere else in Lacaze. The Examiner is making an unsupported logical leap by equating "drive-by-wire" with a "CAN-bus." Drive-by-wire systems can be (and historically have been) implemented using point-to-point analog voltage signaling, pulse-width modulation (PWM), proprietary serial interfaces, FlexRay, local interconnect networks (LIN), or Ethernet.
Applicant considers that under USPTO standards, a feature is only "inherent" if it is necessarily present in the prior art reference, not merely if it is possible or probabilistic (see MPEP § 2112). Because a drive-by-wire system does not necessarily require a CAN-bus, the Examiner cannot rely on inherency to read this limitation into Lacaze.
Therefore, the distinguishing feature of Claim 13 is the control of the cleaning machine is electronic, and a CAN-bus is used for control (Current Application: Claim 13, [0023]).
The technical effect is that utilizing a CAN-bus (Controller Area Network) allows robust, standardized, and high-speed electronic communication between the pavement track system (3D camera/software), the controller, and the physical steering/broom actuators. It reduces wiring complexity, weight, and failure points, and improves signal reliability under the harsh environmental conditions (dirt, moisture, and heavy vibrations) typical of a street sweeping machine (Current Application [0006], [0023]).
The objective technical problem can be defined as how to physically integrate the electronic control system of the street sweeper to ensure reliable, high-speed, and robust real-time communication between the camera sensor, the controller, and the steering/broom actuators in a utility vehicle environment.
Teixeira is a purely mechanical and hydraulic vehicle steered manually by an operator (Teixeira Goethel [0008], [0028]). It contains no electronic control units, no sensors, and no digital communication networks. Therefore, it cannot contribute to solving an electronic network integration problem.
According to the Examiner, Anderson discloses an autonomous street sweeping vehicle including a bus system to communicate over a network for controlling the vehicle (Office Action page 17).
However, Anderson discloses the internal hardware architecture of a computer (data processing system 300) used as a machine controller (Anderson [0054]). Paragraph [0064] of Anderson states: "...a bus system may be used to implement communications fabric 302 and may be comprised of one or more buses, such as a system bus or an input/output bus." This is an internal computer motherboard bus (such as a PCI bus or system bus connecting a processor to memory inside a computer casing). It is not a vehicle-level CAN-bus network used to connect separate electronic control units (ECUs), steering units, and hydraulic valves across a vehicle chassis. Anderson contains no mention or disclosure of a "CAN-bus" or "Controller Area Network."
The skilled person seeking to design a robust communication network across a vehicle chassis would not look to Anderson's disclosure of an internal computer motherboard bus ([0064]) to derive a vehicle-level CAN-bus control system. Most importantly, Claim 13 depends on Claim 1. Because the underlying combination of Lacaze and Teixeira Goethel is unfeasible and structurally incompatible (locking Teixeira Goethel's rear-only steering parallel to a curb renders it completely unsteerable), adding a CAN- bus communication network does not cure this fundamental defect. A CAN-bus cannot make an inoperable steering loop operable.
Lacaze, Teixeira Goethel and Anderson fail to teach or suggest utilizing a CAN-bus to electronically control a street sweeper's rear wheels to maintain them parallel to a curb. The Examiner's rejection rests on a mischaracterization of Anderson, which only teaches a generic internal computer bus (communications fabric) rather than a vehicle-level CAN-bus network. Because the primary combination of Lacaze and Teixeira is physically and logically incompatible, the addition of Anderson's computer bus does not render the subject matter of Claim 13 obvious.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Lacaze does not disclose the utilization of a CAN-bus, the Non-Final Rejection explicitly states, “While Lacaze does disclose an electric drive-by-wire system, it does not explicitly disclose the use of a bus system to perform these controls”. No recitation of inherency was applied or intended. The electronic drive-by-wire system of Lacaze was relied upon to disclose the control being electronic control system as claimed which can distribute systems utilizing a CAN bus system.
Teixeira was not relied upon in this rejection.
However, the combination of the electronic control of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel in combination with the bus system based communication system of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
Regarding the applicant’s assertion that the combination of Lacaze and Teixeira Goethel is unfeasible and structurally incompatible refer to the above response about the specific combination of references relied upon and the recitation of the combination in the rejection itself.
Regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date allegedly not looking to Anderson, Anderson “relates generally to systems and methods for vehicle navigation and more particularly systems and methods for a distributed knowledge base within a vehicle for controlling operation of a vehicle. As an example, embodiments of this invention provide a method and system utilizing a versatile robotic control module for localization and navigation of a vehicle.” (Anderson ¶2).
In a complex system of automatically controlling not just vehicle movement but also control of different components such as a moving sweeping broom, it would have been obvious to look to a reference which utilizes complex controls for multiple different control functions.
However, as claimed, the invention simply uses a CAN-bus for electronic control. Therefore, the general disclosure of the use of the bus system of Anderson is relevant and does disclose the claim element and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 19-20, recite the following:
The Examiner rejects dependent Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel, and further in view of Anderson. The Examiner asserts that while Lacaze and Teixeira do not explicitly disclose a manual override, Anderson discloses a system capable of both manual and autonomous control, with an operator monitoring the truck for safe operation and providing overriding control (Office Action page 17-18).
The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection as Claim 14 depends from independent Claim 1 and thus incorporates all of its limitations. As established above for Claim 1, the physical combination of Lacaze (conventionally steered) and Teixeira Goethel (steered exclusively by its rear wheels, Teixeira Goethel [0028]) is technically inoperable. If Teixeira Goethel's rear wheels are constrained to remain parallel to the curb during the "curb-follow-sweeping mode" of Claim 1, the vehicle loses all steering capability and cannot navigate curves or steer away from the curb. Adding a generic "manual override" from Anderson does not resolve this physical inoperability. An electronic or mechanical override command cannot restore steerability to a vehicle chassis whose only steering axle has been locked parallel to a curb.
The "overriding control" disclosed in paragraph [0043] of Anderson is a generic safety- takeover or teleoperation command for an autonomous utility truck: "...The operator also may monitor truck 104 for safe operation and ultimately provide overriding control for the behavior of truck." This teaches nothing more than a standard emergency-stop or manual steering takeover. It does not teach, suggest, or provide any technical motivation to implement a manual override specifically configured to disengage a localized, automated rear-wheel parallel constraint loop to prevent rear-end tail-swing collisions during a forward sweeping operation.
As established for Claim 13, Lacaze contains no disclosure of a CAN-bus (the Examiner having erroneously equated generic "drive-by-wire" in [0023] with a CAN-bus), and Anderson only teaches an internal computer system bus (communications fabric 302 in [0064]) rather than a vehicle-level network. Without a vehicle-level CAN-bus network, there is no disclosed electronic architecture to route, prioritize, and execute a manual override signal from an operator's interface to the rear-wheel steering actuators across the vehicle chassis.
Regarding applicant’s further assertion to a different distinct combination of the references than that explicitly stated in the Non Final Rejection, refer to the above response.
Regarding the applicant’s assertion that the manual override system of Anderson is somehow distinct from the claim stating, “wherein the controller is adapted to be manually over-ride”, there is nothing within the claim that suggests the need for anything more than a generic manual override command which is possible to be adapted through the controller. Any additional details or distinctions must be explicitly claimed in order to distinguish over the art of record. As established for Claim 13 above, simply stating additional uses and applications of a system is not sufficient to overcome the rejection as written. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, pages 20-21, recite the following:
Regarding the rejection of Claim 17 the applicant further states the following.
Claim 17 depends on independent Claim 1 and incorporates all of its limitations. The physical steering lock-up resulting from the combination of Lacaze and Teixeira Goethel is not cured by adding a display, a suction system, or ventilation openings. Furthermore, without a vehicle-level CAN-bus network (which is completely absent from Lacaze, Teixeira Goethel, and Anderson), there is no electronic basis to transmit and display real-time 3D-camera curb-tracking images and side-shift parameters to an operator's display cab.
The Examiner relies on paragraph [0058] of Anderson to teach the display of Claim 17: "...Display 314 provides a mechanism to display information to a user." see also Fig. 3, element 314). This, however, is a generic computer system monitor connected to an internal motherboard bus inside an office or central data processing unit (Anderson Fig. 1, element 102 "Back Office"; Fig. 3).
It is considered that the Examiner is taking a standard computer system monitor (314) and, using impermissible hindsight under USPTO standards, "mosaicking" it onto the physical broom, suction, and filter assembly of a street sweeper.
Anderson's disclosure of a generic desktop computer monitor ("Display 314" in [0058]) connected to an internal system bus [0064] inside a remote "Back Office 102" (Fig. 1 of Anderson) provides zero technical motivation or suggestion to integrate a specialized, vehicle-level display (5) in the cabin of a street sweeper to show "images of the 3D camera" and "suction power" ([0031]) to assist in lateral broom alignment.
Because the underlying steering systems of Lacaze and Teixeira Goethel are physically incompatible, the addition of a generic computer monitor from Anderson does not render the integrated cleaning, suction, and display system of Claim 17 obvious. Accordingly, because Lacaze, Teixeira Goethel or Anderson, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of dependent Claims 14 and 17, these rejections are unfounded and should be withdrawn. Claims 14 and 17 are non-obvious over Lacaze, Teixeira Goethel and Anderson.
Regarding applicant’s further assertion to a different distinct combination of the references than that explicitly stated in the Non Final Rejection, refer to the above response.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that it would be impermissible hindsight to combine the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with a display from an autonomous vehicle platform which explicitly states application for detecting the buildup of leaves along a curb (Anderson - ¶101), the claim language states details regarding the broom and cleaning system (as disclosed in Lacaze) and at the end includes:
“and further comprising a display”
There are no details whatsoever about what is on this display, what its purpose is, and how it is actually incorporated into the invention as a whole. Whereas Anderson discloses multiple uses and benefits for including a display such as displaying information to the user (¶58), sending alerts or updates for confirmation or updating control information such as manual overrides (¶91), displaying information regarding ideal control modes based on environmental observations (¶100) such as a build-up of leaves in the gutter along a curb (¶101) as well as other anomaly detection alerts (¶124). Asserting impermissible hindsight and “mosaicking” for a claim element solely stating “further comprising a display” while not addressing the combination of references nor the motivation to combine as explicitly stated in the Non Final Rejection is insufficient to overcome the rejection as written.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the following:
6. The cleaning machine according to Claim 1, wherein at least one controller is configured to be switched of in order to not rotate the at least one rear wheel over the rear wheel steering angle.
It appears that the claim was intended to read, “configured to be switched off” and was just a typo. The claim will be interpreted as “switched off” unless otherwise explicitly stated.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 18-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 18 further recite the following claim elements:
“substantially parallel to the side of the road”
The claim element “substantially parallel” does not provide a finite definition to the positioning of the wheel as “substantially” do not provide sufficiently limiting factors to how far the system can deviate from parallel.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claim 19 is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732).
Regarding claim 1, Lacaze discloses an autonomous street sweeper vehicle including cleaning machine for at least one selected of a road and pavement, and a gutter comprising a vehicle (Abstract – sweeping along the curb corresponding to the recited gutter on a paved road),
the vehicle comprising at least one vertically ... movable broom system with respect to the vehicle, at least one front wheel, and at least one rear wheel, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one seat for an operator, at least one controller for moving said broom system (¶11, ¶56-63, and Figs. 2 and 9 – controllable sweeper part is able to move upwards and downwards corresponding to the recited vertically movable broom with respect to the vehicle as well as a vehicle with at least one front and rear wheels. The figures as well as the description of the lead vehicle which may perform sweeping functions while having the option to be manned or unmanned discloses the recited at least one seat for an operator. The “at least one” claim elements only require one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed),
a pavement track system comprising a 3D camera providing 3D-images, pattern recognition software adapted to process the 3D-images, wherein the pattern recognition software identifies a side of the road, and wherein the pattern recognition software measures a distance from the vehicle to the side of the road (¶22 and ¶32-38 - stereo vision camera corresponding to the recited 3D camera given that the stereo camera provides depth values to images corresponding to the recited 3D which is then utilized to detect curbs from the sensor data corresponding to the recited pattern recognition software identifies a side of the road as well as a distance to the curb corresponding to the recited measures a distance from the vehicle to the side of the road), and
wherein the at least one controller is adapted to move the broom-system sideways ... such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled (¶22-27 – vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited move the broom-system sideways ... such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled),
wherein at least one controller is adapted to switch from a sweeping mode to a transport mode, and vice versa, and when in sweeping mode is adapted to switch from a free sweeping mode to a curb-follow-sweeping mode, and vice versa, wherein, in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled (¶53-60 and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode and when obstacles are present and obstacle avoidance is required, the vehicle follows a free sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled and areas where something might cause damage to the sweeping equipment or vehicle the vehicle stops vacuuming until the situation is passed as well as if the vehicle is exclusively a lead vehicle without activated sweeping functionality corresponding to the recited transport mode), and
limited to a position parallel to the side of the road, such that the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained constant (¶22-27 and Fig. 3 – element 303 discloses when a vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained constant).
While Lacaze does disclose a movable broom system as well as steering control, it does not explicitly disclose the movable broom system moves sideways with respect to the vehicle or that the steering control is a rear wheel steering system, however Teixeira Goethel discloses a self propelled street sweeping system including at least one vertically and horizontally movable broom system ... adapted to move the broom-system sideways with respect to the vehicle (¶5 and Fig. 9 – articulated arm with broom mounted assembly is adapted to move sideways and raise/lower with respect to the vehicle)
characterized in that the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate about a vertical axis over a rear wheel steering angle of 1-50 degrees (¶26-28 and Fig. 2 – rear wheels (3) are the driven wheels which utilize a hydraulic cylinder (22) to drive steering of the vehicle where a rear wheel steering control system where a vehicle capable of maneuvering on a street with steering control implicitly includes a steering angle between 1 and 50 degrees), and
The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel in order to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3).
Regarding claim 2, Lacaze further discloses wherein the at least one controller is adapted to rotate the at least one rear wheel by switching from the free sweep mode to the curb-follow-sweep mode (¶53-60 and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode and when obstacles are present and obstacle avoidance is required, the vehicle follows a free sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the sweeping mode including both free-sweeping and curb-follow-sweeping modes and during switching between the two corresponding to the recited rotate the at least one rear wheel by switching from the free sweep mode to the curb-follow-sweep mode).
Regarding claim 4, Lacaze further discloses wherein at least one is selected of (the “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed)
in free sweeping mode the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel steering angle with an angle size which is 0.5-2.0 times the size of the rotation front wheel angle, and
wherein in curb-follow-sweep mode the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle such that the at least one rear wheel is maintained substantially parallel to a side of the road (¶22, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the curb-follow-sweeping modes corresponding to the recited at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle such that the at least one rear wheel is maintained substantially parallel to a side of the road).
Regarding claim 5, Lacaze further discloses wherein at least one controller is configured to rotate the at least one rear wheel over the rear wheel steering angle, which rear wheel steering angle is further controlled in view of speed of the cleaning machine (¶22, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the curb-follow-sweeping modes corresponding to the recited rear wheel steering angle is further controlled in view of speed of the cleaning machine).
Regarding claim 7, Lacaze further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to move the vehicle sideways such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled (¶22, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the curb-follow-sweeping modes corresponding to the recited move the vehicle sideways such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled).
Regarding claim 8, Lacaze further discloses wherein the controller adapts the distance in view of broom wear (¶48-53 and ¶60 - either stops sweeping (vacuuming) or positions the sweeper as to avoid damage to the truck functionality corresponding to the recited adapting distance in view of broom wear).
Regarding claim 9, Lacaze further discloses an autonomous street sweeper vehicle designed to perform many of the functions of the vehicle without the use of humans such as sweeping, vacuuming, blowing, or scraping, but does not explicitly disclose utilizing a second broom system to perform a secondary function.
However, Teixeira Goethel further discloses further comprising a second broom system (Fig. 9 – front wheel broom and telescopic broom corresponding to the recited first and second broom system).
The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls on multiple broom systems of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls on multiple broom systems of Teixeira Goethel in order to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3).
Regarding claim 10, Lacaze further discloses wherein the software adapts for contrast and/or wherein the software adapts for shadow effects, and wherein the software is trained for recognizing the pavement (¶35-38 and ¶48-55 – multiple detection sensors are utilized to detect obstacles and a plurality of different features in the road including detecting potholes in asphalt pavement utilizing the magnitude and color of emitted or reflected light and records the information as pixels as well as other systems which utilize contrast/light reflection strength/wavelength corresponding to the recited contrast and shadow effects to recognize the pavement).
Regarding claim 11, Lacaze further discloses adapted to be steered by an operator or driver (¶56 – lead vehicle may be manned or unmanned while performing sweeping functions corresponding to the recited adapted to be steered by an operator or a driver).
Regarding claim 15, Lacaze further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to maintain the distance between the broom system and side of the road at a constant value within a predetermined limit (¶22 – maintaining serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited distance between the broom system and side of the road at a constant value within a predetermined limit).
Regarding claim 16, Lacaze further discloses wherein an orientation of the 3D-camera is adaptable, and adaptable to be in a height position providing images of the side of the road (¶35 – LADAR corresponding to the recited 3D camera which implicitly adapts its orientation and height as it scans the environment for providing images of the side of the road).
Regarding claim 18, Lacaze further discloses a pavement track system computer program, when loaded and executed on a computer, comprising instructions for operating the cleaning machine according to one of the claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), the instructions causing the computer to carry out the following steps:
loading 3D images, identifying the pavement (¶22 and ¶32-38 - stereo vision camera corresponding to the recited 3D camera given that the stereo camera provides depth values to images corresponding to the recited 3D which is then utilized to detect curbs from the sensor data corresponding to the recited pattern recognition software identifies a side of the road as well as a distance to the curb corresponding to the recited measures a distance from the vehicle to the side of the road);
determining a distance between the broom system and pavement (¶33-43 and ¶63 – distances to the pavement and obstacles are determined to lift or lower the positioning of the broom system disclosing distance between the broom system and the pavement); and
maintaining said distance within predetermined limits by moving said broom system by means of the controller sideways, characterized in based on the distance of the cleaning machine to the side of the road and configuration of said side of the road causing the at least one controller to switch from a sweeping mode to a transport mode, and vice versa, and when in sweeping mode to switch from a free sweeping mode to a curb-follow-sweeping mode, and vice versa, wherein, in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled (¶22-27, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 – element 303 discloses when a vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained constant where the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode and when obstacles are present and obstacle avoidance is required, the vehicle follows a free sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled and areas where something might cause damage to the sweeping equipment or vehicle the vehicle stops vacuuming until the situation is passed as well as if the vehicle is exclusively a lead vehicle without activated sweeping functionality corresponding to the recited transport mode), and
typically limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road, such that the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant (¶22-27 and Fig. 3 – element 303 discloses when a vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant).
While Lacaze does disclose a movable broom system as well as steering control, it does not explicitly disclose the movable broom system moves sideways with respect to the vehicle or that the steering control is a rear wheel steering system, however Teixeira Goethe further discloses by rotating the at least one rear wheel about a vertical axis over a rear wheel steering angle of 1-50 degrees (¶26-28 and Fig. 2 – rear wheels (3) are the driven wheels which utilize a hydraulic cylinder (22) to drive steering of the vehicle where a rear wheel steering control system where a vehicle capable of maneuvering on a street with steering control implicitly includes a vertical angle between 1 and 50 degrees)
The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel in order to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3).
Regarding claim 19, Lacaze further discloses instructions for recognition of a curb (¶22 and ¶32-38 - stereo vision camera corresponding to the recited 3D camera given that the stereo camera provides depth values to images which is then utilized to detect curbs from the sensor data corresponding to the recited instructions for recognition of a curb), and
neglecting the dirt/debris to be removed visible in the image (¶52-55 – avoiding specific areas due to detected potential damage areas), and
compensating for broom-wear (¶52-55 – avoiding specific areas due to detected potential damage areas which would cause broom wear), and
adapting for difficult image situations (¶52-55 – avoiding specific areas due to detected potential damage areas corresponding to the recited difficult image situations).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kossira et al. (US 2013/0054092).
Regarding claim 3, Lacaze does not explicitly disclose rotating the front wheels and the rear wheels in opposite directions, however Kossira discloses a motor vehicle including wherein the at least one front wheel, are adapted to rotate about a front wheel vertical axis, wherein the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel steering angle which is opposite to a rotation of the front wheel vertical angle (¶37 and Fig. 2 - The rear wheels 3 are hereby deflected by the actuator 7 in the opposite direction of the front wheels 2, wherein the front wheels 2 are deflected to the left, the rear wheels 3 are deflected to the right).
The combination of the autonomous street sweep system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the wheel steering characteristics of Kossira fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweep system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the wheel steering characteristics of Kossira in order to improve the subjective driving experience in specific driving situations overcoming the limitations of maximum steering angles applied to a single axle steering control (Kossira - ¶21).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lapis et al. (US 2023/0048018).
Regarding claim 6, Lacaze does not disclose rear wheel steering however Lapis discloses a four wheel drive system including wherein at least one controller is configured to be switched of in order to not rotate the at least one rear wheel over the rear wheel vertical steering angle (¶16 - During the rear-wheel steering deactivation step, the rear-wheel control is switched off).
The combination of the autonomous street sweep system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the independent front wheel and rear wheel steering system of Lapis fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweep system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the independent front wheel and rear wheel steering system of Lapis in order to lock rear axle steering at higher speeds to achieve steady handling (Lapis - ¶52).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Walter (US 2019/0213427)
Regarding claim 12, Lacaze further discloses utilizing 3D images as well as curb detection, but does not explicitly disclose a rising edge validation, however Walter discloses a detection and validation system for detected objects in a driver assist system including wherein the software is adapted to validate a position of a rising edge, and wherein the rising edge is validated on at least two consecutive 3D-images (¶106-112 - Extract in consecutive frames image correspondences for the detection to be validated).
The combination of the 3D sensor based curb detection system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the object verification system of Walter fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the 3D sensor based curb detection system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the object verification system of Walter in order to avoid erroneous detection and classification of detected objects (Walter - ¶2)
Claims 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Anderson (US 2010/0063648).
Regarding claim 13, Lacaze further discloses wherein the control is electronic, and wherein a CAN-bus is used for control (¶23 – drive-by-wire electrical control of vehicle controls corresponding to the recited electronic control distributing signals via a CAN-bus).
While Lacaze does disclose an electric drive-by-wire system, it does not explicitly disclose the use of a bus system to perform these controls, however Anderson discloses an autonomous street sweeping vehicle including a bus system to communicate over a network for controlling the vehicle (¶64).
The combination of the electronic control of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the bus system based communication system of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the electronic control of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the bus system based communication system of Anderson in order to provide for a transfer of data between different components or devices attached to the bus system (Anderson - ¶64).
Regarding claim 14, Lacaze further discloses a system capable of both manual and autonomous control, but does not explicitly disclose a manual override.
However, Anderson further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to be manually over-ride (¶43 - operator also may monitor truck 104 for safe operation and ultimately provide overriding control for the behavior of truck).
The combination of the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson in order to allow an operator to monitor for safe operation of the autonomous vehicles (Anderson - ¶43)
Regarding claim 17, Lacaze further discloses wherein brooms are adapted to sweep debris and dirt to a suction point (¶56 – first sweeper moves the debris to a position for performing the vacuuming function), and
wherein brooms are adapted to move with respect to the cleaning-machine in at least one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and move independent in the horizontal and vertical direction, and wherein the cleaning machine comprises a suction system for up-taking debris and dirt from the suction point, connected to the suction opening a suction tube, at the other end of the suction tube a container for receiving dirt and debris, and a fan for providing suction, and wherein the cleaning machine comprises at least one ventilation opening, and an outlet (¶53-56 and Fig. 2 – vacuum position on element 200 is adjusted corresponding to the recited move with respect to the cleaning-machine in at least one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction where the vacuum lifts debris with suction where Fig. 2 discloses the suction tube and a container for receiving the dirt and debris where commercial sized vacuums implicitly include some form of fan/ventilation opening and an outlet for removing the vacuumed materials), and
Lacaze does not explicitly disclose a display, however Anderson further discloses further comprising a display (¶58).
The combination of the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson in order to allow an operator to monitor for safe operation of the autonomous vehicles (Anderson - ¶43)
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang et al. (US 2014/0229071) discloses a four wheel steered vehicle including multiple controllers which may conditionally supersede each other (¶32).
Toyooka et al. (US 2005/0067212) discloses a steering system for a working truck including switching modes between front wheel, rear wheel, four wheel, opposite-phase 4WS, and in phase 4WS (¶2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
