DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/896,828 filed on 09/25/2024, in
which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024, 09/25/2024, and
02/04/2025 have been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 11-19 filed on 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) further in view of Kuras (US 20210039643 A1) further in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) further in view of Xiao (US 20210370968 A1) further in view of Martinsson (US 9133600 B2) further in view of Osswald (US 9308939 B2) further in view of Kotlaba (US 11952746 B1) further in view of Anderson (US 20190351904 A1) and further in view of Wuisan (US 20220127824 A1).
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20060089766 A1) to Allard et al. (hereinafter Allard) in view of (US 6112143 A) to Allen et al. (hereinafter Allen) and further in view of (US 20250146253 A1) to Hurwitz et al (hereinafter Hurwitz).
Regarding claim 1, Allard discloses An autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system, comprising: a powered earth-moving vehicle having a chassis, at least one of tracks or wheels, at least one of a brake pedal or a decelerator pedal, one or more LiDAR (light detection and ranging) components mounted on the powered earth-moving vehicle, (Allard paragraph 00006: “An input device may be an operator input device such as a drive control (e.g. steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator, or throttle,) or it may include a device connecting an operator input device to the remainder of the drive chain of the vehicle, (e.g., a throttle lever, steering gear, tie rods, or other device that directs vehicle position or motion and that may not be directly manipulated by a human operator.” (Allard Paragraph 0023: “a blade on a bulldozer,”) (Allard Paragraph 0025: “Autonomous control allows a vehicle to be operated according to programmed instructions, with little or no operator intervention.”) (Allard Paragraph 0050: “The perception sensor typically assesses the environment about the vehicle. For example, in some embodiments, the perception sensor suite includes a LIDAR system, stereo vision, infrared vision, radar, sonar, or any combination thereof.”) […] and a control system on the powered earth-moving vehicle that is configured to communicate with the microcontroller unit and to perform automated operations including at least: (Allard Paragraph 0095: “Generally, the mode select commands dictate the operation of the vehicle. In some embodiments, this includes receiving an autonomous operation command (STEP 912).”) (Allard Paragraph 0102: “In some embodiments, the system 1000 also includes are least one receiver 1004 for receiving at least one mode select command and at least one controller 226 in communication with the receiver 1004.”) obtaining LiDAR data from the one or more LiDAR components for one or more areas in a planned travel path of the powered earth-moving vehicle (Allard Paragraph 0054: “The perception sensor typically assesses the environment about the vehicle. For example, in some embodiments, the perception sensor suite includes a LIDAR system”) […] the LiDAR data including a point cloud having a plurality of 3D (three-dimensional) data points on surfaces in the planned travel path; (Allard Paragraph 0055: “Next, the location of the terrain feature relative to the position of the vehicle is computed (STEP 508). The computation is based at least in part on the output of the localization sensor. For example, the output of the localization sensor is interpreted to place the vehicle at a point of a coordinate system. The output of the perception sensor is interpreted to place the terrain feature at particular coordinates relative to this point.”) (Allard Paragraph 0056: “Next, the location(s) of the terrain feature(s) is (are) stored in at least one memory (STEP 510). In some embodiments, a precise determination of a terrain feature's location is required so, for example, the location data includes information to identify the terrain feature's location in three dimensions.”) (Allard Paragraph 0056: “In addition, terrain features may be stored as a point cloud set, whereby discarding three-dimensional points outside the volume of interest significantly reduces the size of the set.”) determining, for each of one or more sections of terrain in the one or more areas in the planned travel path and based at least in part on a subset of the 3D data points in that section, a slope of the terrain in that section; (Allard Paragraph 0054: “Generally, the perception sensor will indicate the presence of a terrain feature that is a potential danger or hazard to the vehicle and that the vehicle may need to avoid. For example, the output of the perception sensor may indicate the presence of one or more of a fence, rock, ditch, animal, person, steep incline or decline, or any combination thereof.”) (Allard Paragraph 0056: “Next, the location(s) of the terrain feature(s) is (are) stored in at least one memory (STEP 510). In some embodiments, a precise determination of a terrain feature's location is required so, for example, the location data includes information to identify the terrain feature's location in three dimensions.”) (Allard Paragraph 0080: “Assume that an obstacle, such as a tree, is detected in the path of the tractor, but still at a safe distance ahead of the tractor.”) determining, while the powered earth-moving vehicle is in motion along the planned travel path and based at least in part on the determined slope for at least one of the sections of terrain being above a defined slope threshold, (Allard Paragraph 0054: “Generally, the perception sensor will indicate the presence of a terrain feature that is a potential danger or hazard to the vehicle and that the vehicle may need to avoid. For example, the output of the perception sensor may indicate the presence of one or more of a fence, rock, ditch, animal, person, steep incline or decline, or any combination thereof.”) (Allard Paragraph 0063: “After the location of a terrain feature is determined, one embodiment includes the step of adjusting the trajectory of the vehicle based at least in part on the terrain feature location stored in the memory (STEP 514).”) to initiate controlled stopping of the powered earth-moving vehicle before the powered earth-moving vehicle travels over the at least one section; and activating, in response to the determining to initiate the controlled stopping, the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal using one or more of the controls via one or more of the piston displacement mechanisms (Allard paragraph 0041: “For example, an operator may depress an "emergency stop" button that triggers the transmission of the safety signal (STEP 308). In other embodiments, the safety signal is transmitted in response to the output of at least one sensor (STEP 312). This can occur if a sensor measures an instability in the vehicle, such as if the vehicle was about to overturn. The controller provided (STEP 302) interprets the output of the sensor, determines an unsafe condition has developed, and triggers the transmission of the safety signal (STEP 308).” “ Paragraph 0075: “For example, the input device can be a drive control. A drive control generally includes a throttle, brake, accelerator, or any combination thereof. A typical input device is a throttle body, which is typically connected to the throttle 206.”) (Allard Paragraph 0076: “Next, the method 700 includes the step of providing one or more actuators (STEP 108) associated with one or more input devices. The actuator is typically an electro-mechanical device that manipulates the input devices. Manipulation occurs by, for example, pushing, pulling, or turning the input devices, or by any combination thereof. A result of this is the autonomous control of the vehicle.”) (Allard Paragraph 0089: “The maximum vehicle speed and correspondingly its maximum deceleration speed can be linked to the amount and density of navigationally significant terrain features in the local vicinity of the vehicle. The vehicle will limit its speed so it only requires a configurable fraction of the maximum deceleration rate of the vehicle to come to a complete stop while still safely avoiding all obstacles.”) until one or more criteria related to motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle are satisfied. (Allard Paragraph 0090: “The system 800 also includes one or more controllers 226 that, in some embodiments, are in communication with the input devices 202 and the arbiter 816 so the controller 226 operates the input devices 202 in accordance with the selected alternative action 804. In some embodiments the selected alternative action 804 may be modified. In some embodiments, the controller 226 is a microprocessor. In other embodiments, the controller 226 is a microcontroller. For example, if the alternative action 804 selected by the arbiter 816 calls for the vehicle to maintain autonomous operation while decreasing its speed by ten percent and turning left by forty-five degrees, the controller 226 will control the actuators 216 associated with the input devices 202, such as the drive control 204 to change the vehicle speed, and a steering wheel to change the vehicle direction.”)
Allard does not teach […] controls for manipulating movement of the at least one of the tracks or wheels via the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal, and piston displacement mechanisms capable of effecting movement of the controls; a microcontroller unit on the powered earth-moving vehicle that is capable of effecting movement of the controls via the piston displacement mechanisms; […] on a job site, […] lowering, as part of the controlled stopping and with a speed below a defined speed threshold, and via at least one of the piston displacement mechanisms, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with the terrain to further cause the controlled stopping; and after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments, and as part of the controlled stopping while the powered earth-moving vehicle is no longer in motion, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle.
However, Allen does teach […] controls for manipulating movement of the at least one of the tracks or wheels via the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal, and piston displacement mechanisms capable of effecting movement of the controls; a microcontroller unit on the powered earth-moving vehicle that is capable of effecting movement of the controls via the piston displacement mechanisms; (Allen Column 4, line number 53-56: “The control system 42 for autonomous mobile machinery 28 includes several software programs that may be executed in the control system computer 40.”) (Allen Column 5, line number 15-19: “Compactor 70 is equipped with electro-hydraulic control system 42 as shown in FIG. 3 capable of outputting commands for autonomous or semi-autonomous operation of the mobile machinery. These controls operate, for example, steering, brake, throttle, blade, and motor controls.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
216
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[…] on a job site, (Allen Column 1, line number 16-17: “mobility over or through a work site,”) […] and after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments, and as part of the controlled stopping while the powered earth-moving vehicle is no longer in motion, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle. (Allen Column 6, line number 49-53: “The operator takes further steps to put the compactor 70 in operational mode including lowering the blade 90, setting a parking brake, and confirming that the compactor 70 is ready to begin autonomous operation. The operator then exits the machine and boards the tractor 68.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard to include […] controls for manipulating movement of the at least one of the tracks or wheels via the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal, and piston displacement mechanisms capable of effecting movement of the controls; a microcontroller unit on the powered earth-moving vehicle that is capable of effecting movement of the controls via the piston displacement mechanisms; […] on a job site, […] and after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments, and as part of the controlled stopping while the powered earth-moving vehicle is no longer in motion, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle taught by Allen. This would have been for the benefit to establishing a perimeter of the work vehicle to be used by a mobile machine that is capable of traversing the work area autonomously. [Allen Column 1, line number 58-65]
Allen does not teach […] lowering, as part of the controlled stopping and with a speed below a defined speed threshold, and via at least one of the piston displacement mechanisms, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with the terrain to further cause the controlled stopping;
However, Hurwitz does teach […] lowering, as part of the controlled stopping and with a speed below a defined speed threshold, and via at least one of the piston displacement mechanisms, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with the terrain to further cause the controlled stopping; (Hurwitz Paragraph 0025: “ In some embodiments, the methods and applications herein can lower the ripper 210 to the second depth 223 if the speed of the machine 200 increases above the target ground speed (e.g., the machine is accelerating, wherein its acceleration is positive).”) (Hurwitz Paragraph 0081: “In one example, the machine is traveling at a target ground speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) with its ripper extending 2 feet below the surface of the soil. As the machine decelerates to 3 mph, the ripper is raised to extend 1.5 feet below the surface of the soil. As the machine accelerates to 6 mph, the ripper is lowered to extend 2.5 feet below the surface of the soil. As the machine detects a positive pitch while it is driving uphill, the ripper is raised to extend 1.5 feet below the surface of the soil to maintain the speed of the machine at 5 mph.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen to include […] lowering, as part of the controlled stopping and with a speed below a defined speed threshold, and via at least one of the piston displacement mechanisms, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with the terrain to further cause the controlled stopping; taught by Hurwitz. This would have been for the benefit to provide a ripper that increases or decreases the depth of the ripper based on the acceleration rate of the vehicle in order to maintain the vehicle at a target speed. [Hurwitz Paragraph 0002]
Regarding claim 8, Allard discloses The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle is one of a bulldozer vehicle or a wheel loader vehicle or a track loader vehicle or a skid steer loader vehicle or an excavator vehicle or a dump truck vehicle. (Allard Paragraph 0023: “This can include, for example, a control used to manipulate a blade on a bulldozer,”)
6. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) and further in view of (US 20210039643 A1) to Kuras et al. (hereinafter Kuras).
Regarding claim 2, Allard in view of Allen and further in view of Hurwitz teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Allen and further in view of Hurwitz does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the activating of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes applying one or more defined amounts of force to the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal via the one or more piston displacement mechanisms, and wherein the one or more criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle include the speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle being below the defined speed threshold.
However, Kuras does teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the activating of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes applying one or more defined amounts of force to the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal via the one or more piston displacement mechanisms, and wherein the one or more criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle include the speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle being below the defined speed threshold. (Kuras Paragraph 0022: “Such input components may include an electronic user interface (e.g., a touchscreen, a keyboard, a keypad, and/or the like) and/or a mechanical user interface (e.g., an accelerator pedal, a decelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a gear shifter for a transmission, and/or the like).”) (Kuras Paragraph 0039: “Additionally, or alternatively, when control is in target high engine speed state 330, ECU 210 may determine that a target engine speed of engine 110 is to be decreased to a low engine speed when a determined total power command is less than the low power output threshold (“T.sub.L”) of engine 110 (thereby advancing control to target low engine speed state 310)”) (Kuras Paragraph 0044: “or a hydraulic implement controller associated with a hydraulic implement of the engine,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the activating of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes applying one or more defined amounts of force to the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal via the one or more piston displacement mechanisms, and wherein the one or more criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle include the speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle being below the defined speed threshold taught by Kuras. This would have been for the benefit to provide a target engine speed module that solves the problem of lugging corresponding to an unexpected difference in desired engine speed and instantaneous engine speed [Kuras Paragraph 0003 and 0006]
7. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) and further in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the automated operations include dividing the one or more areas of the planned travel path into a grid having a plurality of cells, wherein each of the one or more sections of terrain include at least one of the cells, and wherein the automated operations further include determining that the slope of the terrain for the at least one section is above the defined slope threshold includes: determining that the subset of the 3D data points in the at least one section are above a defined minimum quantity threshold; and determining that a difference in height between a lowest of the 3D data points of that subset and a highest of the 3D data points of that subset is above a defined height difference threshold.
However, Douillard does teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the automated operations include dividing the one or more areas of the planned travel path into a grid having a plurality of cells, (Douillard Page 7, line number 14-18:“Some examples of terrain and objects are as follows: rural terrain having hills, cliffs, and plains, together with object such as rivers, trees, fences, buildings, and dams; outdoor urban terrain having roads and footpaths, together with buildings, lampposts, traffic lights, cars, and people; outdoor urban terrain such as a construction site having partially laid foundations,”) (Douillard Page 14, line number 10-12: “A further advantage is that by separately classifying terrain features, the terrain model produced by performing the segmentation algorithm tends to reduce the complexity of, for example, path planning operations.”) wherein each of the one or more sections of terrain include at least one of the cells, and wherein the automated operations further include determining that the slope of the terrain for the at least one section is above the defined slope threshold includes: (Douillard Page 1, line number 26-28: “Cells which contain too steep a slope or are occupied by an object will be characterized by a strong gradient and can be identified as occupied.”) determining that the subset of the 3D data points in the at least one section are above a defined minimum quantity threshold; (Douillard Page 1,line number 27-30: “These height differences provide a computationally efficient approximation to the terrain gradient in a cell. Cells which contain too steep a slope or are occupied by an object will be characterized by a strong gradient and can be identified as occupied.”) (Douillard Page 7, line number 28-29: “The generated 3D point cloud data for the terrain area 4 is processed by the processor 3 using an embodiment of a terrain modelling algorithm”) (Douillard Page 9, line number 34-36: “Thus, in this embodiment the second cell has a relatively large surface gradient value. In particular, the service gradient value of the second cell 14 is above the gradient-threshold.”) and determining that a difference in height between a lowest of the 3D data points of that subset and a highest of the 3D data points of that subset is above a defined height difference threshold. (Douillard Page 1, line number 12-14: “Various algorithms for processing 3D point cloud data of a terrain area are known. Such algorithms are typically used to construct 3D terrain models of the terrain area for use in, for example, path planning or analysing mining environments.”) (Douillard Page 1, line number 24-27: “Min-Max Elevation Maps are also used to capture the height of the returns in each grid cell. The difference between the maximum and the minimum height of the laser scanner returns falling in a cell are computed. A cell is declared occupied if its calculated height difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the automated operations include dividing the one or more areas of the planned travel path into a grid having a plurality of cells, wherein each of the one or more sections of terrain include at least one of the cells, and wherein the automated operations further include determining that the slope of the terrain for the at least one section is above the defined slope threshold includes: determining that the subset of the 3D data points in the at least one section are above a defined minimum quantity threshold; and determining that a difference in height between a lowest of the 3D data points of that subset and a highest of the 3D data points of that subset is above a defined height difference threshold taught by Douillard. This would have been for the benefit to provide segmentation of 3D point cloud data that jointly provides a representation of the ground, and representations of objects. [Douillard Page 2, line number 29-30]
Regarding claim 4, Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz and further in view of Douillard teaches claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 3 wherein the one or more sections of terrain include a plurality of sections of terrain that each includes one of the cells.
However, Douillard does teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 3 wherein the one or more sections of terrain include a plurality of sections of terrain that each includes one of the cells. (Douillard Page 2, line number 12-17: “This involves discretising the area terrain into two superimposed 2D grids of different resolutions, i.e. one grid has larger cells than the other. Each grid cell in each of the two grids is represented by a plane fitted to the corresponding laser returns via least square regression.”) (Douillard Page 4, line number 29-31: “identifying a cell in which a parameter value has been measured as corresponding only to a particular object or terrain feature if the determined function value for that cell is in a range of values that corresponds to the particular object or terrain feature;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 3 wherein the one or more sections of terrain include a plurality of sections of terrain that each includes one of the cells taught by Douillard. This would have been for the benefit to provide segmentation of 3D point cloud data that jointly provides a representation of the ground, and representations of objects. [Douillard Page 2, line number 29-30]
8. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) further in view of (US 20210370968 A1) to Xiao et al. (hereinafter Xiao) and further in view of (US 9133600 B2) to Martinsson et al. (hereinafter Martinsson).
Regarding claim 5, Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz teaches claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the determining of the slope of the terrain for the at least one section includes: extracting a covariance matrix of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; extracting a principal eigenvector of the at least one section that points in a direction of a distribution of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector.
However, Xiao does teach […] extracting a covariance matrix of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; extracting a principal eigenvector of the at least one section that points in a direction of a distribution of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; (Xiao Paragraph 0105: “Map generation submodule 1007 can generation a HD 3D point clouds map based on the frame registration.”) (Xiao Paragraph 0159: “In one embodiment, the characteristics (a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3) can be calculated by applying a principal component analysis (PCA) algorithm to points in the cluster to obtain eigenvalues (λ.sub.1, λ.sub.2, λ.sub.3) of a covariance matrix of the points.”) (Xiao Paragraph 0169: “and for each initial curb point, determining one or more directional characteristics of the initial curb point,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include […] extracting a covariance matrix of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; extracting a principal eigenvector of the at least one section that points in a direction of a distribution of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; taught by Xiao. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method to register point cloud for autonomous driving in order to solve the problem that cloud registration algorithms are highly dependent on a GPS signal for localization for the map construction, which can have a margin of errors in the orders of meters, or register a signal with GPS bounces, for example, in city streets lined by tall buildings or dense forest. [Xiao Paragraph 0005 and 0007]
Xiao does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the determining of the slope of the terrain for the at least one section includes: […] and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector.
However, Martinsson does teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the determining of the slope of the terrain for the at least one section includes: […] and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector. (Martinsson Paragraph 0054: “The sorted eigenvalues λ .sub.1 ≦ λ .sub.2 ≦ λ .sub.3 represent the local surface shape around the point p. A sufficient plane (λ .sub.1 << λ .sub.2 << λ .sub.3 , ie a distribution that is neither linear nor spherical) and a right slope (the angle between the corresponding eigenvector e .sub.1 and the horizontal plane is two angular thresholds α .sub.1 and Points with (such as being in the range of α .sub.2 ) are classified as “pile”.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz further in view of Xiao to include The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the determining of the slope of the terrain for the at least one section includes: […] and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector taught by Martinsson. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method for selecting an attack posture that achieves a high bucket fill rate. [Martinsson Paragraph 0007]
9. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) further in view of (US 9308939 B2) to Osswald et al. (hereinafter Osswald).
Regarding claim 6, Allard does teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 further comprising: one or more GPS antennas mounted at one or more positions on the chassis and capable of receiving GPS signals for use in determining GPS coordinates of at least some of the chassis; (Allard Paragraph 0053: “The fusion of multiple localization sensors typically determines the position of the vehicle relative to one or more reference points. For example, in some embodiments, the localization sensor suite includes a pitch sensor, roll sensor, yaw sensor, compass, global positioning system, inertial navigation system, odometer, or any combination thereof.”) […] and wherein the automated operations further include controlling the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle along the planned travel path using determined GPS coordinates of the at least some of the chassis (Allard Paragraph 0065: The localization sensor suite may include a pitch sensor 604, a roll sensor 606, a yaw sensor 608, an inertial navigation system 610, a compass 612, a global positioning system 614”) (Allard Paragraph 0080: “In this example, the arbiter examines the available alternative action sets (i.e., alternative trajectory sets that will keep the tractor from encountering the tree). The arbiter then selects the highest priority action set (e.g., the trajectory set requiring the least amount of change relative to the intended path of the vehicle).”) (Allard Paragraph 0081: “In some embodiments, the arbiter modifies the selected action set (STEP 718), typically in response to other data. The data may include information received from sensors (STEP 720), such as the localization sensor suite 602,”) (Allard Paragraph 0090: “The system 800 also includes one or more controllers 226 that, in some embodiments, are in communication with the input devices 202 and the arbiter 816 so the controller 226 operates the input devices 202 in accordance with the selected alternative action 804.”)
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach […] and one or more first position sensors mounted on one or more first hydraulic arms between the chassis and a front tool attachment and configured to detect one or more first angles between the chassis and the one or more first hydraulic arms, one or more second position sensors mounted on one or more second hydraulic arms between the chassis and a rear tool attachment and configured to detect one or more second angles between the chassis and the one or more second hydraulic arms, one or more third position sensors mounted on the front tool attachment and configured to detect one or more third angles between the front tool attachment and at least one of the first hydraulic arms, and one or more fourth position sensors mounted on the rear tool attachment and configured to detect one or more fourth angles between the rear tool attachment and at least one of the second hydraulic arms, […] and using detected first and second and third and fourth angles.
However, Osswald does teach […] and one or more first position sensors mounted on one or more first hydraulic arms between the chassis and a front tool attachment and configured to detect one or more first angles between the chassis and the one or more first hydraulic arms, (Osswald Column 18, line number 58-60: “Shown in FIG. 34 is a bucket cylinder position transducer 202 and a I-Axis boom inclinometer 204 which mount to the lift arms 24.”) one or more second position sensors mounted on one or more second hydraulic arms between the chassis and a rear tool attachment and configured to detect one or more second angles between the chassis and the one or more second hydraulic arms, (Osswald Column 25, line number 8-14: “FIGS. 55-56 show side and perspective views of the attachment arrangement where in addition to rock picker 574 the PTO and hitch are being used by a harley rake type attachment 576. Such figures make up a small sampling of the wide range of attachment configurations that may be used by the three-point hitch and PTO assembly 500.”) (Osswald Column 25, line number 25-30: “The three-point hitch control system 578 therefore operates when inputs from the joystick/manual controls 138 (including pushbuttons on the joystick or on the operator interface screen), two-axis inclinometer chassis mount 208, frame extension position sensors 206, and GPS system 140 are sent to the controller 142.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
376
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
one or more third position sensors mounted on the front tool attachment and configured to detect one or more third angles between the front tool attachment and at least one of the first hydraulic arms, (Osswald Column 18, line number 58-60: “Shown in FIG. 34 is a bucket cylinder position transducer 202 and a I-Axis boom inclinometer 204 which mount to the lift arms 24.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
506
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and one or more fourth position sensors mounted on the rear tool attachment and configured to detect one or more fourth angles between the rear tool attachment and at least one of the second hydraulic arms, (Osswald Column 25, line number 8-14: “FIGS. 55-56 show side and perspective views of the attachment arrangement where in addition to rock picker 574 the PTO and hitch are being used by a harley rake type attachment 576. Such figures make up a small sampling of the wide range of attachment configurations that may be used by the three-point hitch and PTO assembly 500.”) (Osswald Column 25, line number 25-30: “The three-point hitch control system 578 therefore operates when inputs from the joystick/manual controls 138 (including pushbuttons on the joystick or on the operator interface screen), two-axis inclinometer chassis mount 208, frame extension position sensors 206, and GPS system 140 are sent to the controller 142.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
376
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[…] and using detected first and second and third and fourth angles. (Osswald Column 19, line number 11-16: “The lift arm system 200 therefore operates when inputs from the joystick/manual controls 138, bucket cylinder position transducer 202, single axis inclinometer boom mount 204, two-axis inclinometer chassis mount 208, frame extension position sensors 206, and GPS system 140 are sent to the sensor-responsive microprocessor controller 142.”) (Osswald Column 25, line number 25-30: “The three-point hitch control system 578 therefore operates when inputs from the joystick/manual controls 138 (including pushbuttons on the joystick or on the operator interface screen), two-axis inclinometer chassis mount 208, frame extension position sensors 206, and GPS system 140 are sent to the controller 142.”) (Osswald Column 25, line number 30-34: “The controller 142 executes a software algorithm which provides the desired output signals to the CAN twin spool valve 584. More specifically, the signals are sent to the pump pressure controller 588 that controls the pump 590”) (Osswald Column 28, line number 14-19: “Those numbered pumps may represent one single pump or any number of additional pumps necessary to carry out the pump functions for each system. The primary systems operated for the work vehicle may include the steering system 710, the drive system 712,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include […] and one or more first position sensors mounted on one or more first hydraulic arms between the chassis and a front tool attachment and configured to detect one or more first angles between the chassis and the one or more first hydraulic arms, one or more second position sensors mounted on one or more second hydraulic arms between the chassis and a rear tool attachment and configured to detect one or more second angles between the chassis and the one or more second hydraulic arms, one or more third position sensors mounted on the front tool attachment and configured to detect one or more third angles between the front tool attachment and at least one of the first hydraulic arms, and one or more fourth position sensors mounted on the rear tool attachment and configured to detect one or more fourth angles between the rear tool attachment and at least one of the second hydraulic arms, […] and using detected first and second and third and fourth angles taught by Osswald. This would have been for the benefit to offer a work vehicle which provides greater versatility, effectiveness and safety in order to provide a vehicle that overcomes the hazards in certain construction environments. [Osswald Column 2, line number 19-43]
10. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) further in view of (US 11952746 B1) to Kotlaba et al. (hereinafter Kotlaba).
Regarding claim 7, Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system, and wherein the automated operations are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real-time kinematic (RTK) correction signals.
However, Kotlaba The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system, (Kotlaba Column 7, line number 63-Column 8, line number 2: “The system of this non-exclusive embodiment may further include one or more storage devices with stored software instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to implement automated operations of an Earth-Moving Vehicle Autonomous Movement Control system”) and wherein the automated operations are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real-time kinematic (RTK) correction signals. (Kotlaba Column 6, line number 58-Column 7, line number 3: “Thus, in one non-exclusive embodiment, a system and techniques may be provided that is used for controlling a powered earth-moving vehicle at an excavation site or other job site to cause it to move to a target destination location on the site from a current location on the site, comprising: a real-time kinematic (RTK) radio mounted on the powered earth-moving vehicle to receive RTK-based GPS correction data from a remote base station; a plurality of GPS receivers mounted at a plurality of respective positions on a chassis of a body of the powered earth-moving vehicle to receive GPS signals and to use the RTK-based GPS correction data to determine and provide updated GPS coordinate data for the respective positions”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system, and wherein the automated operations are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real-time kinematic (RTK) correction signals taught by Kotlaba. This would have been for the benefit to provide powered earth-moving vehicles (e.g., construction and/or mining vehicles) on a site, such as to automatically determine and control movement of one or more powered earth-moving vehicles around a job site when faced with possible on-site obstacles in order to coordinate autonomous operations between multiple on-site construction and/or mining vehicles. [Kotlaba Column 1, line number 53-54 and Column 2, line number 17-22]
11. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) and further in view of (US 20190351904 A1) to Anderson et al. (hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 9, Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has both a brake pedal and a decelerator pedal, and wherein the activating of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes activating both the brake pedal and the decelerator pedal.
However, Anderson does teach The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has both a brake pedal and a decelerator pedal, and wherein the activating of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes activating both the brake pedal and the decelerator pedal. (Anderson Paragraph 0024: “Brake system 225 includes one or more mechanical elements to provide braking to the vehicle. For example, brake system 225 may include one or more braking devices (e.g., brake discs, brake drums, brake pads, and/or the like) to mechanically slow one or more drives of drive system 240.”) (Anderson Paragraph 0027: “As a more specific example, the operator may activate a decelerator input (e.g., a decelerator pedal) that causes vehicle controller 240 to decrease the desired engine speed of engine 205. In some instances, the greater the decelerator input of engine decelerator 235 is applied, the less fuel vehicle controller 240 supplies to engine 205. In some implementations, engine decelerator 235 may be monitored as an input to determine a vehicle speed setting for the vehicle and/or determine whether braking is to be applied within brake system 225. “) (Anderson Paragraph 0040: “In some implementations, vehicle controller 240 may determine the threshold transmission speed from transmission speed setting 230. The transmission speed setting 230 may be based on operator input or an input from an autonomous vehicle controller.”) (Anderson Paragraph 0057: “The disclosed vehicle controller 240 may be used with any vehicle that uses a powershift transmission and/or virtual gears in combination with the powershift transmission, such as a dozer”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include The autonomous vehicle controlled stopping system of claim 1 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has both a brake pedal and a decelerator pedal, and wherein the activating of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes activating both the brake pedal and the decelerator pedal taught by Anderson. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient vehicle controller that uses a retarder control that applies braking pressure to slow the vehicle. [Anderson Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
12. Claim(s) 10-11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) and further in view of (US 20220127824 A1) to Wuisan et al. (hereinafter Wuisan).
Regarding claim 10, Allard discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising: (Allard Paragraph 0104: “Thus, actions described above may be implemented in software that may be embodied in an article of manufacture that includes a program storage medium. The program storage medium includes data signals embodied in one or more of a carrier wave, a computer disk (magnetic, or optical (e.g., CD or DVD), or both), non-volatile memory, tape, a system memory, and a computer hard drive.”) obtaining, by one or more LiDAR (light detection and ranging) components mounted on a powered earth-moving vehicle, LiDAR data for one or more areas in one or more directions around the powered earth-moving vehicle […] the LiDAR data including a point cloud having a plurality of 3D (three-dimensional) data points on surfaces in the one or more areas, wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has a chassis and has at least one of tracks or wheels (Allard Paragraph 0023: “a blade on a bulldozer,”) (Allard Paragraph 0025: “Autonomous control allows a vehicle to be operated according to programmed instructions, with little or no operator intervention.”) (Allard Paragraph 0050: “The perception sensor typically assesses the environment about the vehicle. For example, in some embodiments, the perception sensor suite includes a LIDAR system, stereo vision, infrared vision, radar, sonar, or any combination thereof.”) and has one or more movable tool attachments coupled to the chassis via one or more hydraulic arms and has controls for manipulating movement of the at least one of the tracks or wheels; (Allard Paragraph 0023: “a blade on a bulldozer,”) (Allard Paragraph 0075: “For example, the input device can be a drive control. A drive control generally includes a throttle, brake, accelerator, or any combination thereof. A typical input device is a throttle body, which is typically connected to the throttle 206.”) (Allard Paragraph 0076: “Next, the method 700 includes the step of providing one or more actuators (STEP 108) associated with one or more input devices. The actuator is typically an electro-mechanical device that manipulates the input devices. Manipulation occurs by, for example, pushing, pulling, or turning the input devices, or by any combination thereof. A result of this is the autonomous control of the vehicle.”) […] determining, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth-moving vehicle and while the powered earth-moving vehicle is in motion, that the determined one or more attributes of the at least one surfaces for at least one of the sections satisfy one or more defined criteria for stopping the powered earth-moving vehicle; determining, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth-moving vehicle and based at least in part on the determined one or more attributes of the at least one surfaces for the at least one section satisfying the one or more defined criteria, to initiate stopping of the powered earth-moving vehicle before the powered earth-moving vehicle travels over the at least one section; and activating, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth-moving vehicle and in response to the determining to initiate the stopping, at least one of the controls to cause the powered earth-moving vehicle to stop; (Allard paragraph 0041: “For example, an operator may depress an "emergency stop" button that triggers the transmission of the safety signal (STEP 308). In other embodiments, the safety signal is transmitted in response to the output of at least one sensor (STEP 312). This can occur if a sensor measures an instability in the vehicle, such as if the vehicle was about to overturn. The controller provided (STEP 302) interprets the output of the sensor, determines an unsafe condition has developed, and triggers the transmission of the safety signal (STEP 308). Paragraph 0054: “Generally, the perception sensor will indicate the presence of a terrain feature that is a potential danger or hazard to the vehicle and that the vehicle may need to avoid. For example, the output of the perception sensor may indicate the presence of one or more of a fence, rock, ditch, animal, person, steep incline or decline, or any combination thereof.”) (Allard Paragraph 0080: “Assume that an obstacle, such as a tree, is detected in the path of the tractor, but still at a safe distance ahead of the tractor.”) (Allard Paragraph 0089: “The vehicle will limit its speed so it only requires a configurable fraction of the maximum deceleration rate of the vehicle to come to a complete stop while still safely avoiding all obstacles.”)
Allard does not teach […] on a site, […] determining, by one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth- moving vehicle, and for each of one or more sections in the one or more areas and based at least in part on a subset of the 3D data points in that section, one or more attributes of at least one of the surfaces in that section that are based at least in part on differences in height between 3D data points in that subset; […] and lowering, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth- moving vehicle, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with a surface on which the powered earth-moving vehicle is located to further cause the powered earth-moving vehicle to stop.
However, Douillard does teach […] on a site, (Douillard Page 7, line number 17: “outdoor urban terrain such as a construction site”) […] determining, by one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth-moving vehicle, and for each of one or more sections in the one or more areas and based at least in part on a subset of the 3D data points in that section, one or more attributes of at least one of the surfaces in that section that are based at least in part on differences in height between 3D data points in that subset; (Douillard Page 1, line number 12-14: “Various algorithms for processing 3D point cloud data of a terrain area are known. Such algorithms are typically used to construct 3D terrain models of the terrain area for use in, for example, path planning or analysing mining environments.”) (Douillard Page 1, line number 24-27: “Min-Max Elevation Maps are also used to capture the height of the returns in each grid cell. The difference between the maximum and the minimum height of the laser scanner returns falling in a cell are computed. A cell is declared occupied if its calculated height difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold.”) (Douillard Page 7, line number 28-30: “The generated 3D point cloud data for the terrain area 4 is processed by the processor 3 using an embodiment of a terrain modelling algorithm, hereinafter referred to as the "segmentation algorithm", useful for understanding the invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard to include […] on a site, […] determining, by one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth-moving vehicle, and for each of one or more sections in the one or more areas and based at least in part on a subset of the 3D data points in that section, one or more attributes of at least one of the surfaces in that section that are based at least in part on differences in height between 3D data points in that subset; taught by Douillard. This would have been for the benefit to provide segmentation of 3D point cloud data that jointly provides a representation of the ground, and representations of objects. [Douillard Page 2, line number 29-30]
Douillard does not teach […] and lowering, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth- moving vehicle, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with a surface on which the powered earth-moving vehicle is located to further cause the powered earth-moving vehicle to stop.
However, Wuisan does teach […] and lowering, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth- moving vehicle, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with a surface on which the powered earth-moving vehicle is located to further cause the powered earth-moving vehicle to stop. (Wuisan Paragraph 0111: “In other embodiments, in response to the user stopping or lowering the boom 108, the system 200 automatically stops or slows the work vehicle 100.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard to include […] and lowering, by the one or more configured hardware processors on the powered earth- moving vehicle, at least one of the tool attachments to be in contact with a surface on which the powered earth-moving vehicle is located to further cause the powered earth-moving vehicle to stop taught by Wuisan. This would have been for the benefit to drive the work vehicle toward the container, determines a distance between the work vehicle and the container, determines the ground speed of the work vehicle, determines a boom raising start distance between the work vehicle and the container, receives a user command via the controls to raise the boom, and activates the indicator if the user command to raise the boom occurs prior to the work vehicle reaching the boom raising start distance from the container in order that an operator may not misjudge the distance between the loader and the truck and/or may misjudge the required boom height to clear the side of the container. [Wuisan Paragraph 0002 and 0004]
Regarding claim 11, Allard discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the one or more directions around the powered earth-moving vehicle include a planned travel path of the powered earth-moving vehicle, wherein the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle is along the planned travel path, wherein the determining of the one or more attributes of the at least one surfaces in the at least one section include determining a slope of the at least one surfaces of terrain in the at least one section, and wherein the one or more defined criteria for stopping the powered earth-moving vehicle include the determined slope being above a defined slope threshold. (Allard Paragraph 0054: “Generally, the perception sensor will indicate the presence of a terrain feature that is a potential danger or hazard to the vehicle and that the vehicle may need to avoid. For example, the output of the perception sensor may indicate the presence of one or more of a fence, rock, ditch, animal, person, steep incline or decline, or any combination thereof.”) (Allard Paragraph 0063: “After the location of a terrain feature is determined, one embodiment includes the step of adjusting the trajectory of the vehicle based at least in part on the terrain feature location stored in the memory (STEP 514).”) (Allard Paragraph 0080: “Assume that an obstacle, such as a tree, is detected in the path of the tractor, but still at a safe distance ahead of the tractor.”) (Allard Paragraph 0089: “The vehicle will limit its speed so it only requires a configurable fraction of the maximum deceleration rate of the vehicle to come to a complete stop while still safely avoiding all obstacles.”) (Note: If the incline is too high then an alternative action is taken if there is no incline then the vehicle does not need to avoid the obstacle.)
Regarding claim 17, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Allard does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 further comprising dividing the one or more areas into a grid having a plurality of cells, wherein each of the one or more sections include at least one of the cells, and wherein the method further comprises determining that the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section satisfy the one or more defined criteria includes: determining that the subset of the 3D data points in the at least one section are above a defined minimum quantity threshold; and determining that a difference in height between a lowest of the 3D data points of that subset and a highest of the 3D data points of that subset is above a defined height difference threshold.
However, Douillard does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 further comprising dividing the one or more areas into a grid having a plurality of cells, (Douillard Page 7, line number 14-18:“Some examples of terrain and objects are as follows: rural terrain having hills, cliffs, and plains, together with object such as rivers, trees, fences, buildings, and dams; outdoor urban terrain having roads and footpaths, together with buildings, lampposts, traffic lights, cars, and people; outdoor urban terrain such as a construction site having partially laid foundations,”) (Douillard Page 14, line number 10-12: “A further advantage is that by separately classifying terrain features, the terrain model produced by performing the segmentation algorithm tends to reduce the complexity of, for example, path planning operations.”) and wherein the method further comprises determining that the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section satisfy the one or more defined criteria includes: (Douillard Page 1, line number 26-28: “Cells which contain too steep a slope or are occupied by an object will be characterized by a strong gradient and can be identified as occupied.”) determining that the subset of the 3D data points in the at least one section are above a defined minimum quantity threshold; (Douillard Page 1,line number 27-30: “These height differences provide a computationally efficient approximation to the terrain gradient in a cell. Cells which contain too steep a slope or are occupied by an object will be characterized by a strong gradient and can be identified as occupied.”) (Douillard Page 7, line number 28-29: “The generated 3D point cloud data for the terrain area 4 is processed by the processor 3 using an embodiment of a terrain modelling algorithm”) (Douillard Page 9, line number 34-36: “Thus, in this embodiment the second cell has a relatively large surface gradient value. In particular, the service gradient value of the second cell 14 is above the gradient-threshold.”) and determining that a difference in height between a lowest of the 3D data points of that subset and a highest of the 3D data points of that subset is above a defined height difference threshold. (Douillard Page 1, line number 12-14: “Various algorithms for processing 3D point cloud data of a terrain area are known. Such algorithms are typically used to construct 3D terrain models of the terrain area for use in, for example, path planning or analysing mining environments.”) (Douillard Page 1, line number 24-27: “Min-Max Elevation Maps are also used to capture the height of the returns in each grid cell. The difference between the maximum and the minimum height of the laser scanner returns falling in a cell are computed. A cell is declared occupied if its calculated height difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard to include The computer-implemented method of claim 10 further comprising dividing the one or more areas into a grid having a plurality of cells, wherein each of the one or more sections include at least one of the cells, and wherein the method further comprises determining that the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section satisfy the one or more defined criteria includes: determining that the subset of the 3D data points in the at least one section are above a defined minimum quantity threshold; and determining that a difference in height between a lowest of the 3D data points of that subset and a highest of the 3D data points of that subset is above a defined height difference threshold taught by Douillard. This would have been for the benefit to provide segmentation of 3D point cloud data that jointly provides a representation of the ground, and representations of objects. [Douillard Page 2, line number 29-30]
Regarding claim 18, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 17, accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 17 wherein the one or more sections include a plurality of sections of terrain that each includes one of the cells.
However, Douillard does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 17 wherein the one or more sections include a plurality of sections of terrain that each includes one of the cells. (Douillard Page 2, line number 12-17: “This involves discretising the area terrain into two superimposed 2D grids of different resolutions, i.e. one grid has larger cells than the other. Each grid cell in each of the two grids is represented by a plane fitted to the corresponding laser returns via least square regression.”) (Douillard Page 4, line number 29-31: “identifying a cell in which a parameter value has been measured as corresponding only to a particular object or terrain feature if the determined function value for that cell is in a range of values that corresponds to the particular object or terrain feature;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan to include The computer-implemented method of claim 17 wherein the one or more sections include a plurality of sections of terrain that each includes one of the cells taught by Douillard. This would have been for the benefit to provide segmentation of 3D point cloud data that jointly provides a representation of the ground, and representations of objects. [Douillard Page 2, line number 29-30]
13. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) further in view of Wuisan (US 20220127824 A1) and further in view of Anderson (US 20190351904 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the at least one control manipulates movement of at least one of a brake pedal or a decelerator pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle, and wherein the activating of the at least one control includes using one or more piston displacement mechanisms on the powered earth-moving vehicle to displace the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal.
However, Anderson does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the at least one control manipulates movement of at least one of a brake pedal or a decelerator pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle, and wherein the activating of the at least one control includes using one or more piston displacement mechanisms on the powered earth-moving vehicle to displace the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal. (Anderson Paragraph 0024: “Brake system 225 includes one or more mechanical elements to provide braking to the vehicle. For example, brake system 225 may include one or more braking devices (e.g., brake discs, brake drums, brake pads, and/or the like) to mechanically slow one or more drives of drive system 240.”) (Anderson Paragraph 0027: “As a more specific example, the operator may activate a decelerator input (e.g., a decelerator pedal) that causes vehicle controller 240 to decrease the desired engine speed of engine 205. In some instances, the greater the decelerator input of engine decelerator 235 is applied, the less fuel vehicle controller 240 supplies to engine 205. In some implementations, engine decelerator 235 may be monitored as an input to determine a vehicle speed setting for the vehicle and/or determine whether braking is to be applied within brake system 225. “) (Anderson Paragraph 0040: “In some implementations, vehicle controller 240 may determine the threshold transmission speed from transmission speed setting 230. The transmission speed setting 230 may be based on operator input or an input from an autonomous vehicle controller.”) (Anderson Paragraph 0057: “The disclosed vehicle controller 240 may be used with any vehicle that uses a powershift transmission and/or virtual gears in combination with the powershift transmission, such as a dozer”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan to include The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the at least one control manipulates movement of at least one of a brake pedal or a decelerator pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle, and wherein the activating of the at least one control includes using one or more piston displacement mechanisms on the powered earth-moving vehicle to displace the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal taught by Anderson. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient vehicle controller that uses a retarder control that applies braking pressure to slow the vehicle. [Anderson Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
Regarding claim 13, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has both a brake pedal and a decelerator pedal, and wherein displacing of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes displacing both the brake pedal and the decelerator pedal.
However, Anderson does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has both a brake pedal and a decelerator pedal, and wherein displacing of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes displacing both the brake pedal and the decelerator pedal. (Anderson Paragraph 0024: “Brake system 225 includes one or more mechanical elements to provide braking to the vehicle. For example, brake system 225 may include one or more braking devices (e.g., brake discs, brake drums, brake pads, and/or the like) to mechanically slow one or more drives of drive system 240.”) (Anderson Paragraph 0027: “As a more specific example, the operator may activate a decelerator input (e.g., a decelerator pedal) that causes vehicle controller 240 to decrease the desired engine speed of engine 205. In some instances, the greater the decelerator input of engine decelerator 235 is applied, the less fuel vehicle controller 240 supplies to engine 205. In some implementations, engine decelerator 235 may be monitored as an input to determine a vehicle speed setting for the vehicle and/or determine whether braking is to be applied within brake system 225. “) (Anderson Paragraph 0040: “In some implementations, vehicle controller 240 may determine the threshold transmission speed from transmission speed setting 230. The transmission speed setting 230 may be based on operator input or an input from an autonomous vehicle controller.”) (Anderson Paragraph 0057: “The disclosed vehicle controller 240 may be used with any vehicle that uses a powershift transmission and/or virtual gears in combination with the powershift transmission, such as a dozer”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan to include The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle has both a brake pedal and a decelerator pedal, and wherein displacing of the at least one of the brake pedal or the decelerator pedal includes displacing both the brake pedal and the decelerator pedal taught by Anderson. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient vehicle controller that uses a retarder control that applies braking pressure to slow the vehicle. [Anderson Paragraph 0004 and 0006]
14. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) further in view of Wuisan (US 20220127824 A1) and further in view of Kotlaba (US 11952746 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Allard discloses […] and wherein the determining of the one or more attributes of the terrain in each of the one or more sections and the determining that the determined one or more attributes of the terrain for the at least one section satisfy the one or more defined criteria and the determining to initiate the stopping of the powered earth-moving vehicle (Allard Paragraph 0054: “Generally, the perception sensor will indicate the presence of a terrain feature that is a potential danger or hazard to the vehicle and that the vehicle may need to avoid. For example, the output of the perception sensor may indicate the presence of one or more of a fence, rock, ditch, animal, person, steep incline or decline, or any combination thereof.”) (Allard Paragraph 0063: “After the location of a terrain feature is determined, one embodiment includes the step of adjusting the trajectory of the vehicle based at least in part on the terrain feature location stored in the memory (STEP 514).”) (Allard Paragraph 0080: “Assume that an obstacle, such as a tree, is detected in the path of the tractor, but still at a safe distance ahead of the tractor.”) (Allard Paragraph 0089: “The vehicle will limit its speed so it only requires a configurable fraction of the maximum deceleration rate of the vehicle to come to a complete stop while still safely avoiding all obstacles.”)
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle is one of a bulldozer vehicle or a wheel loader vehicle or a track loader vehicle or a skid steer loader vehicle or an excavator vehicle or a dump truck vehicle, wherein at least one of the one or more hardware processors is a low-voltage microcontroller that is located on the powered earth-moving vehicle and is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system, […] and the activating of the at least one controls and the lowering of the at least one tool attachment are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real- time kinematic (RTK) correction signals.
However, Kotlaba The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle is one of a bulldozer vehicle or a wheel loader vehicle or a track loader vehicle or a skid steer loader vehicle or an excavator vehicle or a dump truck vehicle, wherein at least one of the one or more hardware processors is a low-voltage microcontroller that is located on the powered earth-moving vehicle and is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system, (Kotlaba Column 1, line number 28: “Earth-moving construction vehicles (e.g., loaders, excavators, bulldozers,”) (Kotlaba Column 2, line number 56-57: “Earth-Moving Vehicle Autonomous Movement Control (“EMVAMC”) system”) (Kotlaba Column 4, line number 24-31: “one or more low-power microcontrollers (e.g., an i.MX RT1060 Arm-based Crossover MCU microprocessor from NXP Semiconductors, a PJRC Teensy 4.1 Development Board, a Grove 12-bit Magnetic Rotary Position Sensor AS5600, etc.) or other hardware processors, such as to execute and use executable software instructions and associated data of the EMVAMC system;”) (Kotlaba Column 7, line number 63-Column 8, line number 2: “The system of this non-exclusive embodiment may further include one or more storage devices with stored software instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to implement automated operations of an Earth-Moving Vehicle Autonomous Movement Control system”) […] and the activating of the at least one controls and the lowering of the at least one tool attachment (Kotlaba Column 24, line number 21-23: “IGS. 2M through 2P illustrate further examples of information visualizing retrieving and moving the rock obstacle 275l1 ”)
PNG
media_image4.png
325
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real- time kinematic (RTK) correction signals. (Kotlaba Column 6, line number 58-Column 7, line number 3: “Thus, in one non-exclusive embodiment, a system and techniques may be provided that is used for controlling a powered earth-moving vehicle at an excavation site or other job site to cause it to move to a target destination location on the site from a current location on the site, comprising: a real-time kinematic (RTK) radio mounted on the powered earth-moving vehicle to receive RTK-based GPS correction data from a remote base station; a plurality of GPS receivers mounted at a plurality of respective positions on a chassis of a body of the powered earth-moving vehicle to receive GPS signals and to use the RTK-based GPS correction data to determine and provide updated GPS coordinate data for the respective positions”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan to include The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the powered earth-moving vehicle is one of a bulldozer vehicle or a wheel loader vehicle or a track loader vehicle or a skid steer loader vehicle or an excavator vehicle or a dump truck vehicle, wherein at least one of the one or more hardware processors is a low-voltage microcontroller that is located on the powered earth-moving vehicle and is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system, […] and the activating of the at least one controls and the lowering of the at least one tool attachment are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real- time kinematic (RTK) correction signals taught by Kotlaba. This would have been for the benefit to provide powered earth-moving vehicles (e.g., construction and/or mining vehicles) on a site, such as to automatically determine and control movement of one or more powered earth-moving vehicles around a job site when faced with possible on-site obstacles in order to coordinate autonomous operations between multiple on-site construction and/or mining vehicles. [Kotlaba Column 1, line number 53-54 and Column 2, line number 17-22]
15. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) further in view of Wuisan (US 20220127824 A1) and further in view of Kuras (US 20210039643 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the activating of the at least one controls includes, until one or more additional criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle are satisfied, applying one or more defined amounts of force to at least one of a brake pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle or a decelerator pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle.
However, Kuras does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the activating of the at least one controls includes, until one or more additional criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle are satisfied, applying one or more defined amounts of force to at least one of a brake pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle or a decelerator pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle. (Kuras Paragraph 0022: “Such input components may include an electronic user interface (e.g., a touchscreen, a keyboard, a keypad, and/or the like) and/or a mechanical user interface (e.g., an accelerator pedal, a decelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a gear shifter for a transmission, and/or the like).”) (Kuras Paragraph 0039: “Additionally, or alternatively, when control is in target high engine speed state 330, ECU 210 may determine that a target engine speed of engine 110 is to be decreased to a low engine speed when a determined total power command is less than the low power output threshold (“T.sub.L”) of engine 110 (thereby advancing control to target low engine speed state 310)”) (Kuras Paragraph 0044: “or a hydraulic implement controller associated with a hydraulic implement of the engine,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan to include The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the activating of the at least one controls includes, until one or more additional criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle are satisfied, applying one or more defined amounts of force to at least one of a brake pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle or a decelerator pedal of the powered earth-moving vehicle taught by Kuras. This would have been for the benefit to provide a target engine speed module that solves the problem of lugging corresponding to an unexpected difference in desired engine speed and instantaneous engine speed [Kuras Paragraph 0003 and 0006]
16. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) further in view of Wuisan (US 20220127824 A1) further in view of Kuras (US 20210039643 A1) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) and further in view of Allen (US 6112143 A).
Regarding claim 16, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan further in view of Kuras teaches claim 15, accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan further in view of Kuras does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 15 wherein the one or more additional criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle include a speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle being below a defined speed threshold, wherein the lowering of the at least one tool attachment is performed after the speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle is below the defined speed threshold, and wherein the method further comprises: after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments and as part of the initiated stopping, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle.
However, Hurwitz does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 15 wherein the one or more additional criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle include a speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle being below a defined speed threshold, wherein the lowering of the at least one tool attachment is performed after the speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle is below the defined speed threshold, and wherein the method further comprises: (Hurwitz Paragraph 0025: “ In some embodiments, the methods and applications herein can lower the ripper 210 to the second depth 223 if the speed of the machine 200 increases above the target ground speed (e.g., the machine is accelerating, wherein its acceleration is positive).”) (Hurwitz Paragraph 0081: “In one example, the machine is traveling at a target ground speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) with its ripper extending 2 feet below the surface of the soil. As the machine decelerates to 3 mph, the ripper is raised to extend 1.5 feet below the surface of the soil. As the machine accelerates to 6 mph, the ripper is lowered to extend 2.5 feet below the surface of the soil. As the machine detects a positive pitch while it is driving uphill, the ripper is raised to extend 1.5 feet below the surface of the soil to maintain the speed of the machine at 5 mph.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan further in view of Kuras to include The computer-implemented method of claim 15 wherein the one or more additional criteria related to the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle include a speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle being below a defined speed threshold, wherein the lowering of the at least one tool attachment is performed after the speed of the powered earth-moving vehicle is below the defined speed threshold, and wherein the method further comprises: taught by Hurwitz. This would have been for the benefit to provide a ripper that increases or decreases the depth of the ripper based on the acceleration rate of the vehicle in order to maintain the vehicle at a target speed. [Hurwitz Paragraph 0002]
Hurwitz does not teach […] after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments and as part of the initiated stopping, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle.
However, Allen does teach […] after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments and as part of the initiated stopping, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle. (Allen Column 6, line number 49-53: “The operator takes further steps to put the compactor 70 in operational mode including lowering the blade 90, setting a parking brake, and confirming that the compactor 70 is ready to begin autonomous operation. The operator then exits the machine and boards the tractor 68.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan further in view of Kuras further in view of Hurwitz to include […] after the lowering of the at least one of the tool attachments and as part of the initiated stopping, activating a parking brake of the powered earth-moving vehicle taught by Allen. This would have been for the benefit to establishing a perimeter of the work vehicle to be used by a mobile machine that is capable of traversing the work area autonomously. [Allen Column 1, line number 58-65]
17. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Douillard (WO 2011085435 A1) further in view of Wuisan (US 20220127824 A1) further in view of (US 20210370968 A1) to Xiao et al. (hereinafter Xiao) and further in view of (US 9133600 B2) to Martinsson et al. (hereinafter Martinsson).
Regarding claim 19, Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan teaches claim 10, accordingly the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the determining of the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section includes determining a slope of terrain for the at least one section by: extracting a covariance matrix of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; extracting a principal eigenvector of the at least one section that points in a direction of a distribution of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector.
However, Xiao does teach […] extracting a covariance matrix of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; extracting a principal eigenvector of the at least one section that points in a direction of a distribution of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; (Xiao Paragraph 0105: “Map generation submodule 1007 can generation a HD 3D point clouds map based on the frame registration.”) (Xiao Paragraph 0159: “In one embodiment, the characteristics (a.sub.1, a.sub.2, a.sub.3) can be calculated by applying a principal component analysis (PCA) algorithm to points in the cluster to obtain eigenvalues (λ.sub.1, λ.sub.2, λ.sub.3) of a covariance matrix of the points.”) (Xiao Paragraph 0169: “and for each initial curb point, determining one or more directional characteristics of the initial curb point,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan to include […] extracting a covariance matrix of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; extracting a principal eigenvector of the at least one section that points in a direction of a distribution of the 3D data points in the subset for the at least one section; taught by Xiao. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method to register point cloud for autonomous driving in order to solve the problem that cloud registration algorithms are highly dependent on a GPS signal for localization for the map construction, which can have a margin of errors in the orders of meters, or register a signal with GPS bounces, for example, in city streets lined by tall buildings or dense forest. [Xiao Paragraph 0005 and 0007]
Xiao does not teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the determining of the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section includes determining a slope of terrain for the at least one section by: […] and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector.
However, Martinsson does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the determining of the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section includes determining a slope of terrain for the at least one section by: […] and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector. (Martinsson Paragraph 0054: “The sorted eigenvalues λ .sub.1 ≦ λ .sub.2 ≦ λ .sub.3 represent the local surface shape around the point p. A sufficient plane (λ .sub.1 << λ .sub.2 << λ .sub.3 , ie a distribution that is neither linear nor spherical) and a right slope (the angle between the corresponding eigenvector e .sub.1 and the horizontal plane is two angular thresholds α .sub.1 and Points with (such as being in the range of α .sub.2 ) are classified as “pile”.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Douillard further in view of Wuisan further in view of Xiao to include The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the determining of the one or more attributes of the at least one surface for the at least one section includes determining a slope of terrain for the at least one section by: […] and using, as the slope of the terrain for the at least one section, a ratio between a Z direction component of the principal eigenvector and joint X and Y direction components of the principal eigenvector taught by Martinsson. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved method for selecting an attack posture that achieves a high bucket fill rate. [Martinsson Paragraph 0007]
18. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 20060089766 A1) in view of Allen (US 6112143 A) further in view of Hurwitz (US 20250146253 A1) and further in view of Osswald (US 9308939 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Allard does disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 10 further comprising controlling the motion of the powered earth-moving vehicle along a planned travel path using determined GPS coordinates of at least some of the chassis from one or more GPS antennas mounted at one or more positions on the chassis, (Allard Paragraph 0053: “The fusion of multiple localization sensors typically determines the position of the vehicle relative to one or more reference points. For example, in some embodiments, the localization sensor suite includes a pitch sensor, roll sensor, yaw sensor, compass, global positioning system, inertial navigation system, odometer, or any combination thereof.”) (Allard Paragraph 0080: “In this example, the arbiter examines the available alternative action sets (i.e., alternative trajectory sets that will keep the tractor from encountering the tree). The arbiter then selects the highest priority action set (e.g., the trajectory set requiring the least amount of change relative to the intended path of the vehicle).”) (Allard Paragraph 0081: “In some embodiments, the arbiter modifies the selected action set (STEP 718), typically in response to other data. The data may include information received from sensors (STEP 720), such as the localization sensor suite 602,”) (Allard Paragraph 0090: “The system 800 also includes one or more controllers 226 that, in some embodiments, are in communication with the input devices 202 and the arbiter 816 so the controller 226 operates the input devices 202 in accordance with the selected alternative action 804.”)
Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz does not teach […] and using first angles that are between the chassis and one or more first hydraulic arms rotatably coupled to the chassis and that are detected from one or more first position sensors mounted on the one or more first hydraulic arms, and second angles that are between the one or more first hydraulic arms and one or more tool attachments coupled to the one or more first hydraulic arms and that are detected from one or more second position sensors mounted on the one or more tool attachments.
However, Osswald does teach […] and using first angles that are between the chassis and one or more first hydraulic arms rotatably coupled to the chassis and that are detected from one or more first position sensors mounted on the one or more first hydraulic arms, (Osswald Column 18, line number 58-60: “Shown in FIG. 34 is a bucket cylinder position transducer 202 and a I-Axis boom inclinometer 204 which mount to the lift arms 24.”) and second angles that are between the one or more first hydraulic arms and one or more tool attachments coupled to the one or more first hydraulic arms and that are detected from one or more second position sensors mounted on the one or more tool attachments. (Osswald Column 25, line number 8-14: “FIGS. 55-56 show side and perspective views of the attachment arrangement where in addition to rock picker 574 the PTO and hitch are being used by a harley rake type attachment 576. Such figures make up a small sampling of the wide range of attachment configurations that may be used by the three-point hitch and PTO assembly 500.”) (Osswald Column 25, line number 25-30: “The three-point hitch control system 578 therefore operates when inputs from the joystick/manual controls 138 (including pushbuttons on the joystick or on the operator interface screen), two-axis inclinometer chassis mount 208, frame extension position sensors 206, and GPS system 140 are sent to the controller 142.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
376
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allard in view of Allen further in view of Hurwitz to include […] and using first angles that are between the chassis and one or more first hydraulic arms rotatably coupled to the chassis and that are detected from one or more first position sensors mounted on the one or more first hydraulic arms, and second angles that are between the one or more first hydraulic arms and one or more tool attachments coupled to the one or more first hydraulic arms and that are detected from one or more second position sensors mounted on the one or more tool attachments taught by Osswald. This would have been for the benefit to offer a work vehicle which provides greater versatility, effectiveness and safety in order to provide a vehicle that overcomes the hazards in certain construction environments. [Osswald Column 2, line number 19-43]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights