DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/29/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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, (f) 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “control device” coupled with functional language “that controls” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-10 all recite a control device that controls the work machine, wherein the control device includes: an automated traveling control section, an automated work control section, and a stability determination section. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “the controller (control device) 40 as a computer having control over the system, the engine controller 4 70 that controls the speed of the engine 18 or the like according to the control signal from the controller 40, and the proportional solenoid valves 50 to 55 that generate actions of the actuators (3 to 7) according to the control signals from the controller 40” [Specification, ¶ 0038], thus will be interpreted as a generic computer with internal sections/functions/modules.
Claim 9, which depends on Claim 1 states that the control device that controls the work machine, wherein the control device includes: an automated leveling control section. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “the controller (control device) 40 as a computer having control over the system, the engine controller 4 70 that controls the speed of the engine 18 or the like according to the control signal from the controller 40, and the proportional solenoid valves 50 to 55 that generate actions of the actuators (3 to 7) according to the control signals from the controller 40” [Specification, ¶ 0038], thus will be interpreted as a generic computer with internal sections/functions/modules.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kean et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0032488).
With respect to Claim 1: Kean discloses “An automated control system for a work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0024 with Figure 1a (various types of adjustments can be controlled automatically, semi-automatically, or manually, for example by the use of vehicle automation systems or in response to operator actuation of control mechanisms)];
“comprising: a work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0018-0019 with Figure 1];
“including a plurality of driven members that is driven by a plurality of actuators” [Kean, ¶ 0018-0019 with Figure 1];
“and a control device that controls the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0018-0019 with Figure 1];
“wherein the control device includes: an automated traveling control section that performs automated traveling of the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0049 and 0078 with Figure 1a (controlling machine 102 to change a steering angle relative to a slope angle, change a position of movable element 107, reduce a load on machine 102, change a travel speed, among a wide variety of other changes or adjustments to automatically or semi-automatically control machine 102)];
“an automated work control section that performs automated work of the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0049 with Figure 1a (it predicts how machine 102 will be controllably configured at each of the predicted positions. Machine 102 can be controllably configured by adjusting controllable subsystems 220. Adjustments to controllable subsystems 220 can include, for example, adjusting a position of movable element 107 relative to frame 121, adjusting a type of attachment or implement coupled to machine 102, adjusting a stiffness of suspension system 236, adjusting a steering angle with steering system 234 (e.g., actuating a movable element to turn ground engaging elements 101), among other adjustments that can be performed automatically, semi-automatically, or manually by operator 242)];
“and a stability determination section that determines stability of ground for the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0025 and 0042 with Figure 1a (stability detection and control system 104 is implemented with machine 102 to predict controllable adjustments during an operation. It performs various analyses on the predicted adjustments to detect scenarios that are likely to occur and that are likely to render machine 102 unstable. To do so, stability detection and control system 104 predicts positions to which machine 102 might travel. Stability detection and control system 104 also predicts configurations of machine 102 at each of the predicted positions. For example, it predicts that movable element 107 will be controllably positioned at some angle relative to frame 121 when machine 102 is located at a particular one of the predicted positions. Stability detection and control system 104 also predicts a likely orientation of machine 102 relative to a detected slope. Using this information, stability detection and control system 104 calculates a likely center of gravity of machine 102 at each of the predicted positions (the positions that machine 102 may be likely to occupy in the near future) across jobsite 100. It generates a measure of probability that machine 102 will have a likely center of gravity that renders the machine in an unstable state and implements dynamic control applications to avoid the unstable state) and (Terrain detector 254 illustratively includes map-image generator logic 280, slope identifier logic 282, and terrain output logic 284. Terrain detector 254 is generally configured to detect a wide variety of different terrain characteristics to generate an accurate topographical representation of a geographic area surrounding machine 102 (e.g., ground surface 105)];
“and wherein when execution of automated traveling control by the automated traveling control section is to be followed by execution of automated work control by the automated work control section” [Kean, ¶ 0027 and 0080 (This operation continues, dynamically updating the probabilities based on new machine position and different sensor inputs, as long as machine 102 is being used)];
“the control device executes stability determination by the stability determination section before executing the automated work control” [Kean, ¶ 0027 and 0080 (This operation continues, dynamically updating the probabilities based on new machine position and different sensor inputs, as long as machine 102 is being used)];
“and executes automated control of the work machine on the basis of a determination result obtained by the stability determination section” [Kean, ¶ 0049 with Figure 1a (it predicts how machine 102 will be controllably configured at each of the predicted positions. Machine 102 can be controllably configured by adjusting controllable subsystems 220. Adjustments to controllable subsystems 220 can include, for example, adjusting a position of movable element 107 relative to frame 121, adjusting a type of attachment or implement coupled to machine 102, adjusting a stiffness of suspension system 236, adjusting a steering angle with steering system 234 (e.g., actuating a movable element to turn ground engaging elements 101), among other adjustments that can be performed automatically, semi-automatically, or manually by operator 242)].
With respect to Claim 2: Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of machine body information acquired through a determination operation performed by the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038 and 0080 with Figure 1a (Generally, positioning system 222 receives sensor signals from one or more sensor(s) 206, such as a GPS receiver, a dead reckoning system, a LORAN system, or a wide variety of other systems or sensors, to determine a geographic position of machine 102 across jobsite 100. Positioning system 222 can also access data store 210 to retrieve stored positioning information that indicates positions of machine 102 in performing historical operations, as well as the paths and/or patterns of travel of machine 102 during performance of the historical operations)];
“the determination operation being set in advance” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038 and 0080 with Figure 1a (Generally, positioning system 222 receives sensor signals from one or more sensor(s) 206, such as a GPS receiver, a dead reckoning system, a LORAN system, or a wide variety of other systems or sensors, to determine a geographic position of machine 102 across jobsite 100. Positioning system 222 can also access data store 210 to retrieve stored positioning information that indicates positions of machine 102 in performing historical operations, as well as the paths and/or patterns of travel of machine 102 during performance of the historical operations)].
With respect to Claim 3: Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of a stability determination threshold set in advance according to content of automated control that will be executed after stability determination is executed” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038, 0044, and 0080 with Figure 1a (For instance, terrain output logic 284 applies a slope analysis to the slope data in the map to identify particular coordinate positions having slope angles above a threshold slope angle. This can be used to identify potential hazardous locations or locations around machine 102 that are likely to cause a change in machine stability)].
With respect to Claim 7: Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of a topography measurement result obtained by a topography measuring device that measures a topography of a surrounding of the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038, 0043, and 0080 with Figure 1a (Slope identifier logic 282 generates slope indications and incorporates the slope indications with the locations identified in the geographic map with map-image generator logic 280. That is, slope identifier logic 282 generates slope data indicative of a plurality of slope angles in the geographic area surrounding machine 102, and accordingly incorporates the slope data into the geographic map such that the geographic map includes topographical slope characteristics of the various positions to which machine 102 can travel (e.g., surrounding terrain where machine 102 may have contact through ground engaging elements 101)].
With respect to Claim 10: Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein when the stability determination section determines that the stability is not stable” [Kean, ¶ 0049 with Figure 1a (it predicts how machine 102 will be controllably configured at each of the predicted positions. Machine 102 can be controllably configured by adjusting controllable subsystems 220. Adjustments to controllable subsystems 220 can include, for example, adjusting a position of movable element 107 relative to frame 121, adjusting a type of attachment or implement coupled to machine 102, adjusting a stiffness of suspension system 236, adjusting a steering angle with steering system 234 (e.g., actuating a movable element to turn ground engaging elements 101), among other adjustments that can be performed automatically, semi-automatically, or manually by operator 242)];
“automated traveling control by the automated traveling control section is executed with a change in a traveling target position in the automated traveling control section from an original position” [Kean, ¶ 0078 (At block 326, control system 218 controls machine 102 based on the restriction control signal generated at block 324 in order to avoid the unstable state at the particular position)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kean et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0032488) in view of Yamamoto (United States Patent Publication 2021/0246626).
With respect to Claim 4: While Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of a slope of the work machine measured by a measuring device that measures a slope” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038, 0044, and 0080 with Figure 1a (For instance, terrain output logic 284 applies a slope analysis to the slope data in the map to identify particular coordinate positions having slope angles above a threshold slope angle. This can be used to identify potential hazardous locations or locations around machine 102 that are likely to cause a change in machine stability)];
Kean does not specifically state that the inclination angle of the work machine is being measured.
Yamamoto, which is in the same field of invention of work machine stability teaches “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of an inclination angle of the work machine measured by a measuring device that measures an inclination angle of the work machine” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0114-0124 (the unexpected use determining unit 302 can determine whether the shovel 100 is on the slope and ascertain the inclination direction of the slope based on detection information of the state detecting device 42)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into the invention of Kean to not only measure slope and terrain around a work machine for stability determination as Kean discloses but to also measure the inclination of the work machine as a variable for stability determination as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Yamamoto into Kean to create a more robust system that can measure both slope of the surrounding area and inclination of a work machine itself thus allowing for external and internal sensors for determing slope, thus creating a stronger system that is more reliable. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as slope determination based on cameras and lidars and further on inclination sensors or IMU’s and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 5: While Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of a slope of the work machine measured by a measuring device the slope through a determination operation performed by the work machine, the determination operation being set in advance” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038, 0044, and 0080 with Figure 1a (For instance, terrain output logic 284 applies a slope analysis to the slope data in the map to identify particular coordinate positions having slope angles above a threshold slope angle. This can be used to identify potential hazardous locations or locations around machine 102 that are likely to cause a change in machine stability)].
Kean does not specifically state that the inclination angle of the work machine is being measured.
Yamamoto, which is in the same field of invention of work machine stability teaches “wherein the stability determination section determines the stability on the basis of an inclination angle of the work machine measured by a measuring device that measures an inclination angle of the work machine” [Yamamoto, ¶ 0114-0124 (the unexpected use determining unit 302 can determine whether the shovel 100 is on the slope and ascertain the inclination direction of the slope based on detection information of the state detecting device 42)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into the invention of Kean to not only measure slope and terrain around a work machine for stability determination as Kean discloses but to also measure the inclination of the work machine as a variable for stability determination as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Yamamoto into Kean to create a more robust system that can measure both slope of the surrounding area and inclination of a work machine itself thus allowing for external and internal sensors for determing slope, thus creating a stronger system that is more reliable. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as slope determination based on cameras and lidars and further on inclination sensors or IMU’s and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kean et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0032488) in view of Thompson (United States Patent Publication 2021/0094535).
With respect to Claim 6: While Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 1, wherein when the stability determination section determines that the stability is not stable” [Kean, ¶ 0025 and 0042 with Figure 1a (stability detection and control system 104 is implemented with machine 102 to predict controllable adjustments during an operation. It performs various analyses on the predicted adjustments to detect scenarios that are likely to occur and that are likely to render machine 102 unstable. To do so, stability detection and control system 104 predicts positions to which machine 102 might travel. Stability detection and control system 104 also predicts configurations of machine 102 at each of the predicted positions. For example, it predicts that movable element 107 will be controllably positioned at some angle relative to frame 121 when machine 102 is located at a particular one of the predicted positions. Stability detection and control system 104 also predicts a likely orientation of machine 102 relative to a detected slope. Using this information, stability detection and control system 104 calculates a likely center of gravity of machine 102 at each of the predicted positions (the positions that machine 102 may be likely to occupy in the near future) across jobsite 100. It generates a measure of probability that machine 102 will have a likely center of gravity that renders the machine in an unstable state and implements dynamic control applications to avoid the unstable state) and (Terrain detector 254 illustratively includes map-image generator logic 280, slope identifier logic 282, and terrain output logic 284. Terrain detector 254 is generally configured to detect a wide variety of different terrain characteristics to generate an accurate topographical representation of a geographic area surrounding machine 102 (e.g., ground surface 105)];
“automated control is changed” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038, 0044, and 0080 with Figure 1a (For instance, terrain output logic 284 applies a slope analysis to the slope data in the map to identify particular coordinate positions having slope angles above a threshold slope angle. This can be used to identify potential hazardous locations or locations around machine 102 that are likely to cause a change in machine stability)];
Kean does not specifically state stopping the vehicle or alerting an external system.
Thompson, which is in the same field of invention of remote control work vehicles based on stability, teaches “wherein when the stability determination section determines that the stability is not stable” [Thompson, ¶ 0002 and 0005];
“automated control is suspended” [Thompson, ¶ 0097-0098 (The external or machine control system 40, 20 may be configured to process the map data comprising the risk data and alter a pre-determined route of the work machine(s) 11 such that the route avoids areas for having a high risk of instability. Alternatively, the external or machine control system 40, 20 may generate an alert to an operator if the work machine 11 approaches any locations having a high risk of instability. The external or machine control system 40, 20 may cause application of brakes of the work machine 11 if the work machine approaches any locations having a high risk of instability. Once the machine 11 has stopped following application of the brakes)];
“and suspension is notified to an external system via a communication device that communicates with the external system” [Thompson, ¶ 0097-0098 (The external or machine control system 40, 20 may be configured to process the map data comprising the risk data and alter a pre-determined route of the work machine(s) 11 such that the route avoids areas for having a high risk of instability. Alternatively, the external or machine control system 40, 20 may generate an alert to an operator if the work machine 11 approaches any locations having a high risk of instability. The external or machine control system 40, 20 may cause application of brakes of the work machine 11 if the work machine approaches any locations having a high risk of instability. Once the machine 11 has stopped following application of the brakes)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thompson into the invention of Kean to not only changing vehicle functions and routes based on stability issues as Kean discloses but to also stop the vehicle and alert a remote operator when stability issues arise as taught by Thompson with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Thompson into Kean to create a more robust system that can help stop internal operators from overriding instability places [Thompson, ¶ 0098]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as work machine control in unstable environments and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kean et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0032488) in view of Hayashida et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0272645).
With respect to Claim 8: While Kean discloses “The automated control system for a work machine according to claim 7, wherein when automated traveling control is to be followed by automated work control in an execution order of automated control of the work machine” [Kean, ¶ 0049 with Figure 1a (it predicts how machine 102 will be controllably configured at each of the predicted positions. Machine 102 can be controllably configured by adjusting controllable subsystems 220. Adjustments to controllable subsystems 220 can include, for example, adjusting a position of movable element 107 relative to frame 121, adjusting a type of attachment or implement coupled to machine 102, adjusting a stiffness of suspension system 236, adjusting a steering angle with steering system 234 (e.g., actuating a movable element to turn ground engaging elements 101), among other adjustments that can be performed automatically, semi-automatically, or manually by operator 242)];
“the control device executes stability determination by the stability determination section after automated traveling control to a determination execution position apart from a final target position in automated traveling control” [Kean, ¶ 0032-0038, 0044, and 0080 with Figure 1a (For instance, terrain output logic 284 applies a slope analysis to the slope data in the map to identify particular coordinate positions having slope angles above a threshold slope angle. This can be used to identify potential hazardous locations or locations around machine 102 that are likely to cause a change in machine stability)];
“and before automated traveling control from the determination execution position to the final target position” [Kean, ¶ 0027 and 0080 (This operation continues, dynamically updating the probabilities based on new machine position and different sensor inputs, as long as machine 102 is being used)];
“whereby the control device executes stability determination by the stability determination section after executing automated traveling control by the automated traveling control section and before executing automated work control by the automated work control section” [Kean, ¶ 0027 and 0080 (This operation continues, dynamically updating the probabilities based on new machine position and different sensor inputs, as long as machine 102 is being used)];
Kean does not specifically state that positions are determined based on distance, rather the positions stability are determined continuously by sensors/data as the vehicles operate.
Hayashida, which is also a work machine that determines locations along a path teaches “by a predetermined distance set in advance” [Hayashida, ¶ 0058 and 0125].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayashida into the invention of Kean to not only continuously calculate stability factors for predicted locations of a work vehicle as the work vehicle operates as Kean discloses but to also calculate data based on a predetermined distance as taught by Hayashida with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hayashida into Kean to create a more robust system that not only updates data while traveling but also can save computation time but limiting how often a calculation is carried out, based on distance. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as position of a route determinization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c