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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is 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. More specifically, the term “can” in “geolocation sensor that can..” and “transceiver that can communicate…” renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the sensor and transceiver configured to produce loader .. data and communicate data.
Claims 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on claim 26.
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 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATKINSON (2016/0076225) in view of Halder (US 20200150687 A1), Sakai (US 20170122741) and further in view of Simons (US 20190101925 A1).
Regarding claim 26, ATKINSON discloses a loader (¶0028, “wheel loader”, ¶0032, “controller 42 may also be configured to complete portions of the truck loading cycle autonomously”) comprising:
a speed control mechanism (¶0027, “Interface devices 34 may be configured to communicate and/or generate signals that are used to control machine 10 (e.g., to control steering, travel speed, travel direction, work tool motion, etc.”).;
a steering system (¶0027, “Interface devices 34 may be configured to communicate and/or generate signals that are used to control machine 10 (e.g., to control steering, travel speed, travel direction, work tool motion, etc.”);
a shovel mechanism (¶0027, “Interface devices 34 may be configured to communicate and/or generate signals that are used to control machine 10 (e.g., to control steering, travel speed, travel direction, work tool motion, etc.”, ¶0018, “Work tool 20 may include any device used to perform a particular task such as, for example, a bucket, a fork arrangement, a blade, a shovel”);
a geolocation sensor that can produce loader geolocation data (abstract, “ a locating device configured to generate a position signal indicative of a position of an excavation machine”);
a transceiver that can communicate with and receive data from at least a base station (¶0010, “a controller in communication with the locating device, the sensor, the backup camera, and the display. The controller may be configured to receive a location signal from offboard the excavation machine that is indicative of a location of a haul truck”); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the speed control mechanism, the steering system (¶0017, “Interface devices 34 may be configured to communicate and/or generate signals that are used to control machine 10 (e.g., to control steering, travel speed, travel direction, work tool motion, etc.), the geolocation sensor (¶0021, “Sensor 40 may then generate a signal corresponding to the distance, direction, size, and/or shape of the object, and communicate the signal to an onboard controller”), the shovel mechanism (¶0018, “shovel”), and the transceiver, the controller has code that receives a location of a load location at a load zone (¶0010, “The controller may be configured to receive a location signal from offboard the excavation machine that is indicative of a location of a haul truck; and to determine, based on the load signal, when the work tool of the excavation machine is filled with at least a threshold amount of material from a pile at the worksite. The controller may also be configured to determine the position of the excavation machine based on the position signal, in response to the work tool being filled with at least the threshold amount of material”, ¶0017, “Interface devices 34 may be configured to communicate and/or generate signals that are used to control machine 10 (e.g., to control steering, travel speed, travel direction”, ¶0018, “controllable via operator station 18. Work tool 20 may include any device used to perform a particular task such as, for example, a bucket, a fork arrangement, a blade, a shovel”) ;
determines a load path to the load location based on the load location and the loader geolocation data (¶0010, “The controller may also be configured to plan a travel path for the excavation machine to the haul truck through the pivot point”);
instructs the speed control system and the steering system to follow the load path to the load location (¶0017, “interface devices 34 may be configured to communicate and/or generate signals that are used to control machine 10 (e.g., to control steering, travel speed, travel direction, work tool motion, etc.)”;
instructs the shovel mechanism to dump the load in the dump truck (¶0024, “operator of excavation machine 10 must shift gears, and resume travel in a forward direction along a second travel segment 50 that leads to dump location 24 over haul truck 12. And during travel along segments 46 and 50, the operator must raise work tool 20 from a dig height to a dump height over haul truck 12 ”).
ATKINSON does not explicitly disclose but, Halder teaches an autonomous loader (abstract, “autonomous loaders”); instructs the speed control system and the shovel mechanism to collect a load at the load zone (¶00156, “Vehicle systems 1312 can be used to set the path and speed of autonomous vehicle 1300.”, ¶0067, “using a dozer to autonomously load a truck with the dug materials at Location A, and (3) using a truck to autonomously transport the materials from Location A to Location B”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with the autonomous loader taught in Halder with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted maximizing the use of available autonomous machines while ensuring that the tasks get performed in a timely manner.
ATKINSON does not explicitly disclose but, Sakai teaches receives a dump truck position and a dump heading (¶0051, “ management system 1 manages the positions of the dump truck 2 … Moreover, the management system 1 manages the directions of the dump truck 2 … The directions of the dump truck 2 and the other construction machine 3 are the directions in which the dump truck 2… move when travelling forward.”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with the dump truck position taught in Sakai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted ensuring a continuous and steady travel within the congested area containing the originally-determined path.
ATKINSON does not explicitly disclose but, Simons teaches determines a backup path and a dump truck approach path based on the dump truck position, the dump heading, and the geolocation data (FIG. 6, ¶0059, “ the approaching turn path 602 begins at an initial turn point 604 that is located along a path line 606, includes a reverse path along which the vehicle 100 moves in a reverse direction from the initial turn point 604 to an intermediate turn point 608, includes a forward path along which the vehicle 100 moves in a forward direction from the intermediate turn point 608 to the first intermediate position 218, and ends at the first intermediate position 218 at the second end 216 of the linear parking path 202”);
instructs the speed control system and the steering system to follow the backup path and the dump truck approach path to the dump truck (¶0022, “autonomous parking” refers to a form of autonomous driving in which motive actions of a vehicle (e.g., steering, turning, accelerating, decelerating, etc.) are controlled by the vehicle without direct driver input to park the vehicle in a parking spot”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with the dump truck position taught in Simons with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Regarding claim 27, Simmons teaches wherein the controller has code that determines a reverse turn path that has an angle that is the intersecting angle of the dump truck approach path and the backup path (FIG. 3, and ¶0041, “traveling along the linear parking path 202 and into the perpendicular parking spot 102 located between the other perpendicular parking spots 104. In FIG. 3, the vehicle 100 is positioned at a third intermediate position 302 along the linear parking path 202 that is between the first intermediate position 218 at the first end 214 and the second intermediate position 220 at the second end 216. At the third intermediate position 302, the vehicle 100 is oriented at an angle 304 relative to the linear parking path 202”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with the dump truck position taught in Simons with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Regarding claim 28, Simmons teaches wherein the load path has an angle that is the normal angle to a load zone boundary (FIG. 3, and ¶0041, “traveling along the linear parking path 202 and into the perpendicular parking spot 102 located between the other perpendicular parking spots 104. In FIG. 3, the vehicle 100 is positioned at a third intermediate position 302 along the linear parking path 202 that is between the first intermediate position 218 at the first end 214 and the second intermediate position 220 at the second end 216. At the third intermediate position 302, the vehicle 100 is oriented at an angle 304 relative to the linear parking path 202”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with the dump truck position taught in Simons with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Regarding claim 29, ATKINSON discloses wherein the load zone boundary is determined by driving the autonomous loader around the load zone and collecting geolocation data (¶0003).
Regarding claim 30, Simmons teaches wherein the dump truck approach path is perpendicular relative to the dump truck heading (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with the dump truck position taught in Simons with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATKINSON (2016/0076225) in view of Halder (US 20200150687 A1), Sakai (US 20170122741) and further in view of Simons (US 20190101925 A1) as applied to claim xx and further in view of Deines (US 20150308070).
Regarding claim 31, ATKINSON does not explicitly disclose but, Deines teaches wherein the dump truck approach path terminates at a position on the dump truck that is offset in one or two dimensions from the dump truck position (¶0064, “At some point, control system 134 determines at block 230 that it is within a predetermined distance from the dump truck 106. Processing then continues at block 224 where control system 134 calculates whether loader 102 is approaching dump truck 106 ”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with dump truck distance taught in Deines with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATKINSON (2016/0076225) in view of Halder (US 20200150687 A1), Sakai (US 20170122741) and further in view of Simons (US 20190101925 A1) as applied to claim 26 and further in view of CASHLER (20160274228).
Regarding claim 38, CASHLER teaches wherein the controller ignores warnings indicating that the autonomous loader is approaching the load location along the path of the autonomous loader, such that the autonomous loader gets closer to the load location than a predetermined proximity (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with dump truck distance taught in CASHLER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Regarding claim 39, CASHLER teaches further comprising ignoring warnings indicating that the autonomous loader is approaching the load location along the path of the autonomous loader, such that the autonomous loader gets closer to the load location than a predetermined proximity (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Excavation system disclosed in ATKINSON with dump truck distance taught in CASHLER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing a width of the perpendicular parking spot in which the vehicle is able to be parked, and/or to avoid performing a readjustment maneuver within the perpendicular parking spot.
Regarding claims 32-37, claims 32-37 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 26-31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis (20160223350) discloses A system and method for driver guidance are presented. A position sensor is mounted to a vehicle. The position sensor is configured to identify a position of the vehicle and a heading of the vehicle. A device is configured to generate a plurality of outputs. A controller is connected to the position sensor and the display device. The controller is configured to access, via a wireless communications network, a database to identify a target loading location for the vehicle, determine a location and a heading of the target loading location for the vehicle, and modify at least one of the plurality of outputs of the display device based upon at least one of the location and the heading of the target loading location (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667