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 01/12/2026 (claimed foreign priority date 07/07/2023):
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Claims 1, 9-10 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 partially overcome some of the drawings objections to from the previous Office Action.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, as currently amended. Therefore, the “vehicle control device comprising: an acquisition processing unit, a determination processing unit, and a countermeasure processing unit” as claimed in claim 18, as currently amended, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Right now the drawing fig. 1 presents the following:
“vehicle control device 11 comprising: a countermeasure processing unit 112;” and
“obstacle detection device 15 comprising: an acquisition processing unit 511, a determination processing unit 512.”
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “vehicle control system that includes an acquisition processing unit, a determination processing unit, and a countermeasure processing unit,” as described in the specification, e.g., Para [0009] at least as published. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
For the purpose of this examination, in view if the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the claimed/specified “an acquisition processing unit, a determination processing unit, and a countermeasure processing unit” are components/elements of the claimed/specified “vehicle 10” as presented in fig. 1 of the specification.
Claim Interpretation
1. Applicant appears not to argue, in remarks filed on 01/12/2026, the claim interpretation (invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations in claims 1 and 17-18) from the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 9-10 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.
1.1.1 Claim 9, as currently amended, recites limitations/features that are not supported or found in the specification.
These limitations/features are as the following: “a sensitivity setting indicative of a likelihood of execution;” “a likelihood of execution.”
The specification, in Para [0153-0154, 0159-0160], at least as published specifies only the following: “… when the monitoring mode is set to the short-distance mode, the detection control unit 51 sets the likelihood threshold to a high value, and makes it less likely that a detection target will be recognized as an obstacle (lowers the sensitivity). In this case, when it is determined with certainty by the detection control unit 51 that a detection target is an obstacle (such as a person or a vehicle), that is, when a detection target with a high likelihood has been detected, the vehicle control device 11 executes the countermeasure processing;” and “… when the monitoring mode is set to the long-distance mode, the detection control unit 51 sets the likelihood threshold to a low value, and makes it more likely that a detection target will be recognized as an obstacle (increases the sensitivity). In this case, when it is determined by the detection control unit 51 that a detection target seems to be an obstacle (such as a person or a vehicle), that is, when a detection target with a low likelihood has been detected, the vehicle control device 11 executes the countermeasure processing,” BUT, HOWEVER, the specification is silent about “a sensitivity setting indicative of a likelihood of execution;” “a likelihood of execution.” Clarification is required, and Applicant is kindly requested to provide detail information on where in the specification a support for the currently presented, in the claim 9, “sensitivity setting indicative of a likelihood of execution;” “likelihood of execution” can be found.
For the purpose of this examination, in view if the specification, and under BRI, the terms “sensitivity setting indicative of a likelihood of execution;” “likelihood of execution,” in claim 9 are not given a patentable weight, and hence claim 9 will be interpreted similar to how it was interpreted during the previous examination: “9. The vehicle control method according to claim 6, wherein a sensitivity, being setting information for making the countermeasure processing to be executed or not to be executed, can be set, and the threshold is additionally set according to the sensitivity setting.”
1.1.2 Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected dependent claim 9, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2. Applicant’s amendments have partially overcome some of the 112(b) or 112 2nd paragraph rejections to claims 9-10 from the previous Office Action.
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 9-10 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 Claim 9, as currently amended, recites the following limitations/features: “a sensitivity setting indicative of a likelihood of execution;” “a likelihood of execution,” which is unclear what they are, which renders the claim indefinite.
Additionally, these limitations/features are not supported or found in the specification, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view if the specification, and under BRI, the terms “sensitivity setting indicative of a likelihood of execution;” “likelihood of execution,” in claim 9 are not given a patentable weight, and hence claim 9 will be interpreted similar to how it was interpreted during the previous examination: “9. The vehicle control method according to claim 6, wherein a sensitivity, being setting information for making the countermeasure processing to be executed or not to be executed, can be set, and the threshold is additionally set according to the sensitivity setting.”
3.1.1 Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected dependent claim 9, 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 the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing according to the type of the detection target and the distance information (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 objections to the drawings, on page 8 of 13 in the remarks filed 01/12/2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC§ l 12(b), on pages 8-9 of 13 in the remarks filed 01/12/2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
3. 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.
4. Applicant argues on pages 9-11 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 that the combination of the Deng and Pore references, in certain paragraphs selected and/or cited by the Applicant, but different from the paragraphs cited by the Examiner (Emphasis Added), does not teach, suggest, or fully meet all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 7-16 of the office action above, where it is discussed how the combination of references (Deng in view of Pore), in different from the paragraphs selected and/or cited by the Applicant (Emphasis Added), teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
The Examiner respectfully notices that the paragraphs of the above references cited and/or selected by the Applicant have never been cited by the Examiner, and that the Applicant never explained or provided any evidences on why the cited by the Examiner prior art references (combination of Deng and Pore) do not teach, suggest, or fully meet all the claimed elements, features, and limitations in the paragraphs, columns and lines cited by the Examiner.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the combination of references (Deng and Pore), as discussed in the paragraphs of the prior art references indicated in the office action above, teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations. Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
5. Particularly, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 that “… Deng fails to provide any indication that the "distance information relating to a distance to a detection target ... is detected by a detection unit on the ·work vehicle" or that "image information relating to a capture image of the detection target ... is captured by an imaging unit on the work vehicle," as recited, in relevant part, in amended independent Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 7-8 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 positioned on the 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.
6. Applicant argues on page 10 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 that “… Deng also fails to disclose "causing the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing according to the type of the detection target and the distance information," as recited, in relevant part, in independent Claim 1,” and the Applicant presents what the Deng reference teaches in some paragraphs different from the paragraphs selected and/or cited by the Applicant (Emphasis Added)BUT, HOWEVER, Applcant does not provide any evidence for or explanation on WHY Deng also fails to disclose "causing the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing according to the type of the detection target and the distance information," as recited, in relevant part, in independent Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 7-16 of the office action above, where it is discussed how the combination of references (Deng in view of Pore) teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations. Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
7. Applicant argues on page 11 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 that “… Pore also fails to disclose "causing the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing according to the type of the detection target and the distance information." as recited, in relevant part, in independent Claim 1,” and the Applicant presents what the Pore reference teaches in some paragraphs different from the paragraphs selected and/or cited by the Applicant (Emphasis Added), BUT, HOWEVER, Applcant does not provide any evidence for or explanation on WHY Pore also fails to disclose "causing the work vehicle to execute countermeasure processing according to the type of the detection target and the distance information." as recited, in relevant part, in independent Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 7-16 of the office action above, where it is discussed how the combination of references (Deng in view of Pore) teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations. Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
8. Applicant argues on page 11 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 that “… even if, arguendo, Deng and Pore could be combined, the combination would not teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent Claim 1;” that “… the combination of Pore, which is (a) unrelated to autonomous vehicles and (b) pertains to trains travelling on known routes on well-defined tracks and relying on track-based sensors placed at known risk-areas such as level crossings with Deng's system to "automatically record warehouse entry and exit information," is inapposite, and, as outlined above, even if combined, would not teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent Claim 1,” BUT, HOWEVER, Applcant does not provide any evidence for or explanation on WHY even if, arguendo, Deng and Pore could be combined, the combination would not teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent Claim 1; OR WHY the combination of Pore, which is (a) unrelated to autonomous vehicles and (b) pertains to trains travelling on known routes on well-defined tracks and relying on track-based sensors placed at known risk-areas such as level crossings with Deng's system to "automatically record warehouse entry and exit information," is inapposite, and, as outlined above, even if combined, would not teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 7-16 of the office action above, where it is discussed how the combination of references (Deng in view of Pore) teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
Additionally, the Examiner kindly draws Applicant’s attention at abstract, Para [0001, 0004] of the Deng reference, where Deng teaches on “autonomous driving system.” Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
9. Regarding the applicant’s arguments on page 11 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 with respect to independent claims 17-18 the “[i]ndependent claims 17 and 18, which recite limitations similar to Claim 1, are also allowable for at least the same reasons as Claim 1; and dependent claims 2-7 and 11-16 that “[d]ependent Claims 2-7 and 11-16 are also allowable because of their dependence on an allowable base claim,” the examiner presents the same arguments regarding the rejection as presented for claim 1. For the above reason, it is believed that the rejections should be maintained.
10. Applicant argues on page 12 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 that “Zhang fails to cure the deficiencies of Deng and Pore,” BUT HOWEVER, Applcant does not provide any evidence for or explanation on WHY Zhang fails to cure the deficiencies of Deng and Pore.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 16-17 of the office action above, where it is discussed how the combination of references (Deng in view of Pore and Zhang) teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations in claims 9 and 10.
11. Regarding the applicant’s arguments on page 12 of 13 of the remarks filed 01/12/2026 with respect to dependent claims 9-10 that “… dependent Claims 9-10, which depend from independent Claim 1, are also allowable over the above references because of their dependence on allowable Claim 1,” the examiner presents the same arguments regarding the rejection as presented for claim 1. For the above reason, it is believed that the rejections should be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final 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