DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This first non-final action is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 09/04/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive. The Applicant argues that Kodama does not anticipate the current independent claims as amended, particularly where the initial turning point is located at an intersection of the first moving path and a boundary line of the work area and controlling the self-moving machine along the boundary line toward the initial turning point to reach a second path point. The Examiner acknowledges and agrees that Kodama does not anticipate the amended claim limitations; however, the amended limitations are still unpatentable over Kodama as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replicate with very little modification.
With reference to Applicant’s Fig. 8, the Examiner understands the claimed method limitations essentially control the self-moving machine to travel to initial turning point 1, travel backward to target turning point 2, turn along the first turning path to reach first path point 4, travel backward along the boundary line to second path point 5, and turn along the second turning path to target point 3.
Meanwhile, with reference to Kodama Figs. 6-15, the automatic traveling system for the tractor controls it to move to point p4, move backward to p5, turn along path P2a to point p6, travel backward along path P2c to point p8, and turn along path P2d to point p9.
While Kodama also features additional steps (such as traveling an additional distance from p6 to p7 along P2b, and traveling forward from p9 to p2 and then backward to p3), it follows the same geometry of points and turning paths that is claimed to arrive at a parallel path and face in an opposite direction as the claimed invention. The only significant difference is that the claimed boundary line to the working area is not Kodama’s field specifying line (see SL in Fig. 5) and Kodama’s boundary line BL separates the direction change area A2a and the reciprocation area A2b (Figs. 6-15). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kodama performs the same maneuvers in the same geometry of points as the claimed inventions, and would find it an obvious matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area. Therefore, the amended claims are unpatentable in view of Kodama as recited in the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“A turning control device for a self-moving machine, comprising:
an acquisition module, configured for acquiring…;
a determination module, configured for determining…;
and a control module, configured for controlling,…” in claim 14. Claims 15-16 further limit claim 14 with reference to the turning control device and comprising control module.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In reference to Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0129] recites “…the application further provides a self-moving machine, which includes … a controller, wherein … the controller is used for controlling the moving machine to turn, the controller is able to run a turning control program of the self-moving machine, and the turning control program of the self-moving machine is configured to further realize the steps of the turning control method for a self-moving machine described above.” Therefore the Examiner interprets the “turning control device” with comprising modules to be embodied in the controller recited in Applicant’s specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (US 20230320246 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kodama discloses a method for operating a self-moving machine to traverse a working area (see at least abstract), comprising:
controlling the self-moving machine to move along a first moving path to reach an initial turning point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving to end position p4);
controlling the self-moving machine to move along the first moving path away from the initial turning point to a target turning point located on the first moving path (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving back from end position p4 to start position p5);
controlling the self-moving machine to turn at the target turning point along a first turning path to reach a first path point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including turning along start-side turning route P2a to end position p6);
controlling the self-moving machine to move from the first path point toward the initial turning point to reach a second path point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving along backward-movement route P2c to end position p8);
and controlling the self-moving machine to turn at the second path point along a second turning path to reach a target point located on a second moving path that is substantially parallel to the first moving path (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including turning along end-side turning route P2d to end position p9).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose the initial turning point is located at an intersection of the first moving path and a boundary line of the working area;
the first and second path points are located on the boundary line;
and controlling the self-moving machine to move from the first path point along the boundary line toward the initial turning point and reach the second path point.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claim 14, Kodama discloses a control device for a self-moving machine (see at least abstract and ¶ [0071] disclosing a target route generator for a tractor), comprising:
an acquisition module, configured for acquiring information of a working area where the self-moving machine is to traverse (see at least ¶ [0071-0074] disclosing a mobile communication terminal and in-vehicle control unit communicating field information and a target route for a tractor traveling through a field);
a determination module, configured for determining an initial turning point based on the information of the working area (see at least ¶ [0112-0119] disclosing a direction change route process, including generating a right forward-movement route on which the tractor moves forward to the right from an end position of the start-side turning route);
and a control module (see at least ¶ [0071-0074] disclosing an in-vehicle control unit communicating a target route for a tractor traveling through a field), configured to perform operations including:
controlling the self-moving machine to move along a first moving path to reach an initial turning point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving to end position p4);
controlling the self-moving machine to move along the first moving path away from the initial turning point to a target turning point located on the first moving path (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving back from end position p4 to start position p5);
controlling the self-moving machine to turn at the target turning point along a first turning path to reach a first path point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including turning along start-side turning route P2a to end position p6);
controlling the self-moving machine to move from the first path point toward the initial turning point to reach a second path point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving along backward-movement route P2c to end position p8);
and controlling the self-moving machine to turn at the second path point along a second turning path to reach a target point located on a second moving path that is substantially parallel to the first moving path (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including turning along end-side turning route P2d to end position p9).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose the initial turning point is located at an intersection of the first moving path and a boundary line of the working area;
the first and second path points are located on the boundary line;
and controlling the self-moving machine to move from the first path point along the boundary line toward the initial turning point and reach the second path point.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claim 17, Kodama discloses a self-moving machine, comprising a head, a body, a moving machine and a controller (see at least ¶ [0038] and [0040] disclosing an autonomous tractor coupled to mowing equipment, [0041] disclosing an automatic traveling unit equipped to the tractor, and [0044] disclosing an in-vehicle control unit), wherein the head is detachably connected to the body (see at least ¶ [0038] and [0040] disclosing an autonomous tractor coupled to mowing equipment), the moving machine and the controller are arranged on the body (see at least ¶ [0041] and [0044] disclosing an automatic traveling unit and an in-vehicle control unit equipped to the tractor), the controller is configured to control the moving machine to perform operations (see at least abstract ¶ [0071] disclosing a target route generator for a tractor) by executing a control program of the self-moving machine (see at least abstract ¶ [0071] disclosing a target route generator for a tractor that generates and stores a target route for the tractor to follow), the operations including:
moving along a first moving path to reach an initial turning point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving to end position p4);
moving along the first moving path away from the initial turning point to a target turning point located on the first moving path (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving back from end position p4 to start position p5);
turning at the target turning point along a first turning path to reach a first path point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including turning along start-side turning route P2a to end position p6);
moving from the first path point toward the initial turning point to reach a second path point (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including moving along backward-movement route P2c to end position p8);
and turning at the second path point along a second turning path to reach a target point located on a second moving path that is substantially parallel to the first moving path (see at least ¶ [0109-0136] and Figs. 6-15 disclosing a direction change route process, including turning along end-side turning route P2d to end position p9).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose the initial turning point is located at an intersection of the first moving path and a boundary line of the working area;
the first and second path points are located on the boundary line;
and controlling the self-moving machine to move from the first path point along the boundary line toward the initial turning point and reach the second path point.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Kodama does not explicitly disclose the initial turning point is located between the first path point and the second path point.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Kodama does not explicitly disclose the initial turning point coincides with the second path point.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claim 5, Kodama does not explicitly disclose the first path point and the second path point are separated by a first distance along the boundary line, the first distance being determined based on a second distance between the first path point and the target point and a third distance between the first moving path and the second moving path.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to require the backward distance is half of the path distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claim 6, Kodama discloses acquiring a current linear speed and a current progress of the self-moving machine at a current position during the turning (see at least ¶ [0053], [0058], and [0080] disclosing a vehicle speed automatic control process that tracks the tractor’s current speed and controls the tractor’s speed according to the generated target route);
adjusting the current linear speed to a target linear speed (see at least ¶ [0080] disclosing a vehicle speed automatic control process that controls the tractor’s speed according to the generated target route);
calculating an angular speed of the self-moving machine based on the current progress of the self-moving machine and the target linear speed (see at least ¶ [0059], [0062-0064], and [0170] disclosing the tractor using a turning brake mode where the tractor decelerates to a target speed when approaching and entering a turning route);
and controlling the self-moving machine to turn at the current position according to the target linear speed and the angular speed of the self-moving machine (see at least ¶ [0080] disclosing a vehicle speed automatic control process that controls the tractor’s speed according to the generated target route including turning routes).
Regarding claim 7, Kodama discloses calculating, when the self-moving machine is turning, a radius of a turning circle based on the current progress of the self-moving machine (see at least ¶ [0062-0064] and [0148-0149] disclosing the tractor using a turning brake mode where the tractor decelerates to a target speed when approaching and entering a turning route, such that it decreases to the target route generator’s determined turning radius);
and calculating the angular speed of the self-moving machine based on the radius of the turning circle and the target linear speed (see at least ¶ [0062-0064] and [0148-0149] disclosing the tractor using a turning brake mode where the tractor decelerates to a target speed when approaching and entering a turning route, such that it decreases to the target route generator’s determined turning radius).
Regarding claim 10, Kodama discloses the self-moving machine comprises a left wheel and a right wheel (see at least ¶ [0051-0052], [060-0061], and [0081] disclosing a shift unit controller that determines how much speed is provided to right and left front wheels and right and left rear wheels while following a target route);
and the controlling, according to the target linear speed and the angular speed of the self-moving machine, the self-moving machine to turn at the target turning point along the first turning path comprises:
obtaining speeds of the left and right wheels based on the target linear speed and the angular speed of the self-moving machine (see at least ¶ [0051-0052], [060-0061], and [0081] disclosing a shift unit controller that determines how much speed is provided to right and left front wheels and right and left rear wheels while following a target route);
and controlling, according to the speeds of the left and right wheels, the self-moving machine to turn at the target turning point along the first turning path (see at least ¶ [0051-0052], [060-0061], and [0081] disclosing a shift unit controller that determines how much speed is provided to right and left front wheels and right and left rear wheels while following a target route).
Regarding claim 11, Kodama discloses controlling the self-moving machine to move by a backward distance along the first moving path to reach the target turning point (see at least ¶ [0160-0163] and Figs. 19A-20C disclosing a setting predetermined distance (Lth) that the tractor moves backward through to reach an end position for a part of the route path).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose the backward distance being determined based on a path distance between the first moving path and the second moving path.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to require the backward distance being determined based on a path distance between the first moving path and the second moving path, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Kodama does not explicitly disclose the backward distance is half of the path distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to require the backward distance is half of the path distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Kodama does not explicitly disclose the first path point coincides with an intersection between the boundary line and the second moving path or an extension thereof.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kodama for its turning points and path points to coincide with the boundary of the working area because it is a matter of design choice to have the interceding backwards travel step that occurs between the turns occur on a working area boundary if desired, since the Applicant has not disclosed that positioning it along the boundary of the working area solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with performing the interceding backwards travel step inside the boundary of the working area.
Regarding claim 18, Kodama discloses the self-moving machine is a crawler-type mower (see at least ¶ [0038] and [0040] disclosing an autonomous tractor coupled to mowing equipment).
Claims 2, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (US 20230320246 A1) in view of Hua et al. (CN 111152784 B; related to reference disclosed in IDS filed 11/21/2024).
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 19, Kodama discloses acquiring a coordinate value of a current position of the self-moving machine (see at least ¶ [0066] and [0103-0119] disclosing a positioning unit of the tractor to measure the position and orientation of the tractor and a target route generator that places starting, relay, and end positions (p1 to p9) along the target route);
calculating an inclination angle of the self-moving machine at the current position based on the coordinate value of the current position and a coordinate value of the initial turning point (see at least ¶ [0062-0063], [0072], and [0081] disclosing a steering angle sensor used to provide angle measurements to steering automatic control processing that controls the tractor’s front wheels to travel along the target route);
calculating a reference position on the first turning path corresponding to the current progress based on the current progress, the coordinate value of the initial turning point, a coordinate value of the target turning point, and a coordinate value of the first path point (see at least ¶ [0112-0119] disclosing a target route generator issuing routes in a direction change route process, including generating a right forward-movement route on which the tractor moves forward to the right from an end position of the start-side turning route);
and adjusting motion of the self-moving machine based on a deviation between the current position and the reference position (see at least ¶ [0112-0119] disclosing a direction change route process, including generating a right forward-movement route on which the tractor moves forward to the right from an end position of the start-side turning route).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose calculating a current progress of the self-moving machine along the first turning path using dichotomy based on the inclination angle.
However, Hua suggests calculating a current progress of the self-moving machine along the first turning path using dichotomy based on the inclination angle (see at least page 2 of the machine translation, starting with “2)Based on the second-order Bezier curve…” disclosing using second-order Bezier curves to define local path planning for a valet parking method, including parameterizing the curve depending on if the vehicle is starting or finishing its travel through the curve (x∈[0,1], y∈[0,1], whether the 0 or 1 input suggests the recited “dichotomy”)).
While Hua is directed toward smart cars and directing them through valet parking whereas Kodama is directed toward tractors operating in a field, both inventions are concerned with controlling their respective vehicles in performing turns while being aware of their surroundings to accurately reach a desired location at the end of their turn. Hua merely parameterizes the turns using Bezier curves and are not dependent on being implemented into a smart car. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the Bezier curve parameterization of Hua into the tractor turning system of Kodama with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward controlling vehicles to perform turns while maintaining an awareness of their surroundings. This would help the tractor more accurately follow its generated direction change route and arrive its desired end position.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (US 20230320246 A1) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2017190503 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kodama discloses calculating the angular speed of the self-moving machine based on the target linear speed and the radius of the turning circle (see at least ¶ [0062-0064] and [0148-0149] disclosing the tractor using a turning brake mode where the tractor decelerates to a target speed when approaching and entering a turning route, such that it decreases to the target route generator’s determined turning radius).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose calculating, based on the current progress of the self-moving machine, position values of the self-moving machine reaching a first position and a second position during turning and a radian relative to the current position of the self-moving machine during turning;
and calculating a radius of a turning circle based on the radian and the position values of the first position and the second position.
However, Liu teaches a radian calculation module that calculates a first included angle formed by a vehicle traveling from an initial turning position to a current turning position according to a preset running trajectory drawing error rate. The radian is a curve of the curvature of the vehicle traveling from the turning initial position to the current turning position, which is a current turning radius of the vehicle and a second rotation speed of the vehicle around an axis of a world coordinate system. The error rate is calculated according to a preset driving trajectory, and error accumulation caused by inaccurate positioning of the vehicle over a long period of time is reduced by calculating an initial total angle corresponding to the initial position of the turning at the current turning position of the vehicle (see at least pages 2 and 5-7 of the machine translation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the radian calculation and trajectory error rate of Liu into the tractor turning system of Kodama with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward accurately tracking and positioning a vehicle while it travels through a curve. While the vehicle of Liu is not specifically an autonomous vehicle, the geometric principles and calculations used to verify its position as it travels through a preset driving trajectory turn are complementary to the parameters used to guide the autonomous operations of Kodama’s tractor and would improve its identified positioning to successfully travel its determined turning route.
Regarding claim 9, Kodama discloses acquiring a current body orientation, a current body position and a target position of the self-moving machine when turning (see at least ¶ [0066] and [0076] disclosing a positioning unit the measures the position and orientation of the tractor while traveling the target route).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose determining an angular difference between a heading direction of the self-moving machine at the current body position and a direction from the current body position toward the target position;
calculating a difference between the current body position and the target position to obtain a position deviation;
and calculating the angular speed of the self-moving machine based on the target linear speed, the radius of the turning circle, the angular difference and the position deviation.
However, Liu teaches a radian calculation module that calculates a first included angle formed by a vehicle traveling from an initial turning position to a current turning position according to a preset running trajectory drawing error rate. The radian is a curve of the curvature of the vehicle traveling from the turning initial position to the current turning position, which is a current turning radius of the vehicle and a second rotation speed of the vehicle around an axis of a world coordinate system. The error rate is calculated according to a preset driving trajectory, and error accumulation caused by inaccurate positioning of the vehicle over a long period of time is reduced by calculating an initial total angle corresponding to the initial position of the turning at the current turning position of the vehicle (see at least pages 2 and 5-7 of the machine translation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the radian calculation and trajectory error rate of Liu into the tractor turning system of Kodama with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward accurately tracking and positioning a vehicle while it travels through a curve. While the vehicle of Liu is not specifically an autonomous vehicle, the geometric principles and calculations used to verify its position as it travels through a preset driving trajectory turn are complementary to the parameters used to guide the autonomous operations of Kodama’s tractor and would improve its identified positioning to successfully travel its determined turning route.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights