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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed with RCE on 04/23/2026 (claimed foreign priority date 07/07/2023):
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Claims 1 and 17-18 have been amended by Applicant.
Claim 8 has been objected to.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawings objections to from the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. Applicant’s arguments during the Applicant-Initiated interview held on 03/19/2026 were persuasive and, hence, have overcome the 112(a) or 112, 1st paragraph, rejections and the 112(b) or 112, 2nd paragraph, rejections to claims 9-10 from the previous Office Action.
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2.1 Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
2.1.1 Claims 1 and 17-18, as currently amended, recite the limitations/features that are not supported or found in the specification.
These limitations/features are as the following: “causing, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claims 1 and 17; and “a countermeasure processing unit that causes, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claim 18.
The specification, at least as published, in numerous paragraphs, only specifies the following:
in Para [0055] – “… generating a distance image or the like based on the measurement information;”
in Para [0067, 0071, 0073] – “… determining the type of a detection target (measurement target) based on the capture images acquired and the measurement information acquired;”
in Para [0072, 0074-0075] – “… calculating the likelihood (probability) based on the distance information included in the measurement information and the capture images;”
in Para [0089] – “… determining, based on the determination result (e.g., the type of the detection target, the likelihood of the type, and the likelihood threshold corresponding to the distance to the detection target), whether or not it is necessary to make the work vehicle 10 to execute the countermeasure processing;” “… causing the work vehicle 10 to execute countermeasure processing based on the likelihood calculated by the obstacle detection device;”
in Para [0097] – “…determining, based on the capture images, whether or not the detection target is a detection target in which it is necessary to make the work vehicle execute the countermeasure processing;”
in Para [0098] – “…determining, based on the type of the detection target, whether to execute the stopping processing or to execute the avoidance processing;”
in Para [0131] – “…determining the type of the detection target (measurement target) based on the capture images acquired from the camera 53, and the measurement information acquired from the obstacle sensor;”
in Para [0132] – “…calculating the likelihood of the detection target that has been determined based on the capture images that the detection target is a person, calculating the likelihood (probability) that indicates the possibility (certainty) of a person based on the distance to the detection target, determining based on the capture images that the detection target is a vehicle;”
in Para [0139] – “…calculating based on the image information, and causing the work vehicle 10 to execute the countermeasure processing when the calculated likelihood exceeds the likelihood threshold; the type of a detection target determined based on the image information and the distance information, likelihood of the type of a detection target calculated based on the image information and the distance information,” BUT, HOWEVER, the specification is silent about ““causing, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” as claimed in claims 1 and 17; or “a countermeasure processing unit that causes, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” as claimed in claim 18.” Clarification is required, and Applicant is kindly requested to provide detail information on where in the specification a support for the currently presented limitations/features, claimed in currently amended claims 1 and 17-18 indicated above, can be found.
Opposed to the above, the specification, both as originally filed or as published, in numerous paragraphs, only specifies the “… causing the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing according to (NOT BASED ON – (Emphasis added)) the type of the detection target and/or the distance information.” Hence, clarification is required, and Applicant is kindly requested to provide detail information on where in the specification a support for the currently presented limitations/features, claimed in currently amended claims 1 and 17-18 indicated above, can be found.
For the purpose of this examination, in view if the specification, and under BRI, the limitations/features “causing, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claims 1 and 17; and “a countermeasure processing unit that causes, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claim 18 are not given a patentable weight, and therefore the corresponding limitations/features/terms in currently amended claims 1 and 17-18 will be interpreted similar to how they were interpreted during the previous examination.”
2.1.2 Claims 2-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
3. 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.
3.1 Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
3.1.1 Claims 1 and 17-18, as currently amended, recite the following limitations/features: “causing, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claims 1 and 17; and “a countermeasure processing unit that causes, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claim 18, which is unclear what they are, and/or how the claimed “countermeasure processing” is being executed/performed/established/achieved/made, etc., by the work machine, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, which renders the claims indefinite.
The Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that the term “according to” (that was previously presented in the claim language) is very different from the term “based on” (that is presented in the currently amended claims), because it is well known in the art that the term "according to" refers to a source (person, report, or authority) stating information, often to attribute opinions or cite facts, while the term "based on" describes the foundation, evidence, or data used to create, justify, or derive a conclusion; that the term “according to” is for citing; while the term “based on” is for building upon (see www.google.com/search?q=according+to+vs+based+on (last accessed on 05/02/2026)), which renders the claims indefinite.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully presents that Key Differences are the following:
• According to (Source of Information): Used to report what someone else said or a stated fact. It often emphasizes that the information is not the speaker's own opinion (Example: "According to the report, sales are down 10%.")
• Based on (Foundation/Evidence): Indicates that a conclusion, idea, or work was built upon specific data, evidence, or events (Example: "Based on the sales data, we need to restructure.") (see www.google.com/search?q=according+to+vs+based+on (last accessed on 05/02/2026)).
Additionally, these limitations/features, cited in the currently amended claims, are not supported or found in the specification, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view if the specification, and under BRI, the limitations/features “causing, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claims 1 and 17; and “a countermeasure processing unit that causes, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information, the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing,” in claim 18 are not given a patentable weight, and therefore the corresponding limitations/features/terms in currently amended claims 1 and 17-18 will be interpreted similar to how they were interpreted during the previous examination.”
3.1.2 Claims 2-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
1. Claims 1-7 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENG (CN114103997A) in view of PORE (EP0976640A2).
As per claims 1 and 17-18, DENG discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a vehicle control method/non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions/device (see entire document, particularly abstract, Para [0004, 0010-0014, 0020, 0024, 0045]) that executes:
acquiring, when a work vehicle performs autonomous travel according to a target route, distance information relating to a distance to a detection target that is detected by a detection unit on the work vehicle (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, Para [0015, 0020, 0038, 0045] – teaching millimeter radar and camera electrically connected with computing unit on the vehicle; automatic driving system that automatically inputs in-and-out warehouse information that uses millimeter radar to collect the distance between the vehicle and surrounding obstacles, and cameras to collect image information around the vehicle; the information collected by the millimeter radar and camera uploaded to the computing unit);
acquiring image information relating to a capture image of the detection target that is captured by an imaging unit on the work vehicle (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, Para [0015, 0020, 0038-0039, 0045] – teaching millimeter radar and camera electrically connected with computing unit on the vehicle; automatic driving system that automatically inputs in-and-out warehouse information that uses millimeter radar to collect the distance between the vehicle and surrounding obstacles, and cameras to collect image information around the vehicle; the information collected by the millimeter radar and camera uploaded to the computing unit);
determining a type of the detection target based on the image information (see entire document – teaching these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0020] – teaching uses collecting surrounding obstacles image information around the vehicle); and
causing, based on the determined type of the detection target and based on the distance information (according to the type of the detection target and the distance information, as previously presented in the claims), the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing (see entire document, particularly claim 5, Para [0020, 0040-0041, 0045] – teaching computing unit that judges the surrounding situation of the vehicle through the external information collected by the environmental perception module, and judges the position and status of the vehicle through the vehicle information collected by the vehicle motion module and combines it with the information collected by the environmental perception module; then, the vehicle control module that controls the start, acceleration, deceleration, steering, and stop of the vehicle, and uploads the working status and various operations of the vehicle to the server; the vehicle motion module that ensures that the computing unit implements the perception of the vehicle's status, which facilitates the computing unit to adjust the vehicle's status through the vehicle control module; during vehicle operation, the alarm system that will sound and light alarms when the vehicle starts, turns, accelerates, decelerates, approaches obstacles, cannot pass through obstacles, fails, stops, people approach the vehicle, the lift is running, cargo is outbound, cargo is inbound, etc., to remind irrelevant personnel to stay away and to remind staff to pay attention).
DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing determining a type of the detection target based on the image information.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0044, 0046-0047] – teaching pixels received from the video cameras compared with at least one threshold value to determine obstacle contour; detection means that comprise at least one camera device directed towards the level crossing and connected to a central processing unit comprising means for processing images and recognizing the type of obstacle present on the railway line; speed instructions calculated based on the type of obstacle detected and the distance of the train from the level crossing, where the obstacle is detected; each image-taking device delivering images of the level crossing in the form of a set of pixels each associated with a digital luminance value, the image processing means that comprise means for filtering said pixels by comparing said digital values with at least one threshold value for detecting the outline of said obstacle; classic pattern recognition technique capable of determining the type of obstacle present on the level crossing, for example by extracting characteristic parameters from the detected objects and comparing these parameters with predetermined parameters obtained by prior learning and each corresponding to a type of obstacle).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the DENG reference and the PORE reference are Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, although the DENG reference or the PORE reference do not teach on work/agriculture vehicles, or cameras/sensors installed on work vehicle(s) for detecting obstacle around the work vehicle(s), the Examiner finds that all Applicant, DENG and PORE teach on controlling/operating/adjusting vehicle movement/stopping/operations based on type of detected obstacle(s) around a vehicle and distance from the detected obstacle(s) to the vehicle.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the PORE reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 2, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing a likelihood of the type of the detection target calculated based on the image information, and the work vehicle made to execute the countermeasure processing based on the calculated likelihood.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047] – teaching means for filtering pixels by comparing said digital values with at least one threshold value for detecting the outline of said obstacle; image processing algorithm and classic pattern recognition technique that compare luminance values with one or more threshold values detecting the outline of an obstacle and that compare parameters of detected obstacles with predetermined parameters obtained by prior learning and each corresponding to a type of obstacle, which the Examiner finds is similar to a well-known in the art calculating probability of similarity or likelihood of detected/sensed objects, when pixels or properties are compared.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 3, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing a likelihood of the type of the detection target calculated based on the image information and the distance information, and the work vehicle made to execute the countermeasure processing based on the calculated likelihood.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 4, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing likelihood calculated such that the likelihood increases as the distance becomes shorter.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056] – teaching stopping distance; warning distance, distance greater than warning distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 5, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing work vehicle made to execute the countermeasure processing when the likelihood exceeds a threshold.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 6, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing threshold set to a smaller value as the distance becomes shorter.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056, 0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 7, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing threshold set to a different value depending on a content of the countermeasure processing.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056, 0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 11, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing threshold set based on at least one of a state of a work area in which the work vehicle performs autonomous travel, and a work content performed by the work vehicle.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056, 0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 12, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing threshold set according to the type of the detection target.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056, 0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 13, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing work vehicle that includes a short-distance mode in which it is possible to control a motion of the work vehicle within a predetermined range, and a long-distance mode in which it is possible to control a motion of the work vehicle from outside the predetermined range, and the threshold set to one of a threshold corresponding to the short-distance mode and a threshold corresponding to the long-distance mode.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0010, 0034, 0036-0037] – teaching transmitting information relating to the operation of the system to a remote monitoring center, using a telephone network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 14, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing threshold set to a different value depending on whether the detection target is positioned inside a work area in which the work vehicle is performing autonomous travel, or the detection target is positioned outside the work area.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0026 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0047, 0050-0056, 0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 15, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing work vehicle that includes an individual work mode in which work is performed individually, and a cooperative work mode in which work is performed cooperatively with another work vehicle, and threshold set to one of a threshold corresponding to the individual work mode and a threshold corresponding to the cooperative work mode.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0009-0010, 0014, 0024, 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
As per claim 16, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing for each type of the detection, possibility to set whether or not to make the work vehicle perform the countermeasure processing.
However, PORE discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 3-5, abstract, Para [0010, 0044, 0046-0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PORE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to eliminate the risk of collisions between vehicle/train/convoy and obstacle(s) (see entire PORE document, particularly Para [0014]).
2. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DENG and PORE further in view of ZHANG (CN115892029A).
As per claim 9, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing a sensitivity, being setting information for making the countermeasure processing to be executed or not to be executed, that can be set, and the threshold additionally set according to the sensitivity setting.
However, ZHANG discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0055]).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ZHANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to judge collision scenarios of different degrees, remind the driver with visual and sound effects, comprehensively judge the vehicle operating conditions and make appropriate blind spot position monitoring and warnings, greatly improve the safety performance of vehicle driving (see entire ZHANG document, particularly Para [0035]).
As per claim 10, DENG does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing the sensitivity setting is set according to a user operation.
However, ZHANG discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0029, 0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of DENG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ZHANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to judge collision scenarios of different degrees, remind the driver with visual and sound effects, comprehensively judge the vehicle operating conditions and make appropriate blind spot position monitoring and warnings, greatly improve the safety performance of vehicle driving (see entire ZHANG document, particularly Para [0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 8 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.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
WANG (CN104408970A) – (see entire WANG document, particularly abstract – teaching a vehicle alarm method and device, belonging to the electronic control field; acquiring vehicle driving state information, the state information indicates the current time of the running state, the state information sent to other vehicles at distance of the vehicle in the predetermined distance range of any one vehicle; receiving the state information of other vehicle according to state information sent by the other vehicles of the vehicle state information with other vehicle, judging whether the vehicle is in dangerous state; when the vehicle is in dangerous state, sending the warning information, indicating the vehicle is in dangerous state; solving the problem of higher frequency of happening the traffic accident, realizing the effect of reducing the frequency of the occurrence of the traffic accident).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 1-18 rejections in the remarks filed 04/23/2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
2. Although the Applicant has amended claims by amending and/or revising some or certain limitations/features into recently amended independent/dependent claims by re-phrasing or modifying some verbiage and claim language, the Examiner finds that scope of the claims has not changed, although language-wise the amended claims look and sound differently from how they looked and sounded when were originally filed. The examiner also finds that the scope of the amended claims that has not changed resulted in maintaining the same number of the same previously cited prior art references that have not changed as well. Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
3. Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of 14 of the remarks filed 04/23/2026 that “[n]either reference discloses or suggests "an imaging unit" or "a detection unit" that is "on the work vehicle".
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at page 8 of the office action above, where it is discussed how the Deng reference teaches, particularly fig. 1, Para [0015, 0020, 0038-0039, 0045] on millimeter radar and camera electrically connected with computing unit on the vehicle, which Examiner finds that the “electrically connected millimeter radar, camera and computing unit on the vehicle” indicate that all the mentioned above vehicle system elements/component are hardwire connected, NOT wirelessly or remotely connected, meaning that the above mentioned elements/components, in order to be electrically connected, hardwired, not wirelessly/radio/remotely connected, must be positioned on the same vehicle. Therefore, the Deng reference teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations. Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights